Mayflower District Court
#state-of-mayflower-v-ispilledmytacos
This is the start of #state-of-mayflower-v-ispilledmytacos channel.
Kezzera 2024-09-10 12:05 a.m. CASE INFORMATION**
IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY
---
State of Mayflower v. ISpilledMyTacos
Trial Type: Criminal Felony/Misdemeanor
Judge Assigned: Judge Enneat - Courtroom 104
Complaint Link: Attached
---
UPCOMING COURT DATES
---
---
Comments
1Labels
Criminal, Felony, MisdemeanorKezzera 2024-09-10 12:05 a.m.@toby
toby 2024-09-10 10:52 a.m.
I've acknowledged this case's existence and will get round to it when I can (limited availability this week)
toby 2024-09-12 05:25 a.m.
Good morning, apologies for the sustained delay. Sadly my availability remains limited for a time more. I will look to get things rolling over the weekend (likely Sunday). For now, may I ask that you file a notice of appearance to the court.
@Brit
Brit 2024-09-13 05:01 p.m.
My nams is on the first documentation the MRP classify that as sufficient
Brit 2024-09-13 05:02 p.m.
But for your own record I am Chief State Attorney EffortlessBrit and I'm appearing for the prosecution
Brit 2024-09-15 08:02 a.m.@vinc Hello
vinc 2024-09-15 08:04 a.m.
hello, this is pending re-assignment
vinchello, this is pending re-assignment
Brit 2024-09-15 08:13 a.m.
Okay
Doogy 2024-09-17 05:17 p.m.
Alright, this case has been reassigned to my docket due to a conflict of interest from Judge SOURCED_V. I can see you've been waiting quite a while to get this case going. I will review the criminal information and we shall proceed promptly soon. @Brit
Brit 2024-09-17 05:23 p.m.
Doogy 2024-09-17 07:47 p.m.
Doogy 2024-09-17 07:47 p.m.
The case will proceed as normally until the time stated in my chambers info.
Brit 2024-09-17 07:59 p.m.
Doogy 2024-09-19 07:22 p.m.
Hate to do this to ya cause it's already been delayed enough but I will issue the summons after the adjournment because it seems unreasonable to begin now just for adjournment to happen in a little over a day.
DoogyHate to do this to ya cause it's already been delayed enough but I will issue the summons after the adjournment because it seems unreasonable to begin now just for adjournment to h...
Brit 2024-09-20 02:34 a.m.
All good
Doogy 2024-09-22 12:00 a.m.
The court is officially adjourned until 10:00 a.m. 9 months ago . No filings will be accepted during this time period. Please refrain from speaking in the proceedings as well until we are back in session. Thank you.
cc:@Brit
cc:
Doogy 2024-09-29 10:45 a.m.
Court is officially back in session. I will issue a summons soon for the defendant. Thanks for your patience. @Brit
Brit 2024-09-29 10:45 a.m.
No problem
✨UpBeatButtons✨ 2024-10-03 02:23 p.m.@Doogy 
Doogy 2024-10-03 02:29 p.m.
Summons has been sent to the Defendant. @Brit
Brit 2024-10-03 02:30 p.m.
Amazing
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:06 p.m.@impactiii added as defense counsel.
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:06 p.m.
The Defendant themselves has not yet answered the summons.
impactiii 2024-10-07 07:06 p.m.
he is in the server
impactiii 2024-10-07 07:06 p.m.@El Taco Man
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:06 p.m.
He's supposed to present himself to the court when joining, it's not like we watch the join logs.
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:07 p.m.@El Taco Man added.
DoogyHe's supposed to present himself to the court when joining, it's not like we watch the join logs.
impactiii 2024-10-07 07:07 p.m.
maybe you should. what's wrong with you?
impactiii 2024-10-07 07:07 p.m.
Sry.
impactiii 2024-10-07 07:07 p.m.
.
DoogyHe's supposed to present himself to the court when joining, it's not like we watch the join logs.
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:07 p.m.
Should have realized your honor THAT I AM A LAWYER...
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:07 p.m.
I have had access to the courts discord since it was made..
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:07 p.m.
That is the responsibility of the courts to check.
impactiii 2024-10-07 07:08 p.m.@El Taco Man Welcome!
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:08 p.m.
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:08 p.m.
You should've presented yourself to the Court then. The burden is on yourself to defend yourself. You cut it close to the deadline before a warrant would've been issued for failure to appear. Next time, present yourself to the Court as it is, in fact, your responsibility.
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:08 p.m.
Nonetheless, you are here now.
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:08 p.m.
Not if I was already present from the get-go.
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:09 p.m.
Yes, actually, you still have to present yourself in filing-center or role-request to be responding to the summons for the case. Simply being present in the discord server without saying anything does not qualify as presenting yourself.
impactiii 2024-10-07 07:09 p.m.
Order!
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:09 p.m.
Give me the rulebook your honor, I'll go play by play.
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:10 p.m.
You can do as you wish, but you risk a warrant every time when you don't properly present yourself.
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:10 p.m.
Anyway, moving on,
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:10 p.m.
I believe this is the clerk's fault your honor...
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:10 p.m. 
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:11 p.m.
we shall schedule arraignment. I suspect everyone would like to do it in discord as that seems to be the popular choice, my schedule is present in chamber-information . Although we shall do it in discord, it would still be best for all applicable parties to be present simultaneously for the arraignment. @El Taco Man @impactiii @Brit
El Taco ManClick to see attachment.
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:12 p.m.
My clerk notified me you were already in the server, and I stated to him the same as I have just stated to you, that the burden is on you to present yourself to the Court in order to appear for your proceedings. Being in the discord server does not satisfy this.
Doogywe shall schedule arraignment. I suspect everyone would like to do it in discord as that seems to be the popular choice, my schedule is present in chamber-information . Although ...
impactiii 2024-10-07 07:14 p.m.
waive arraignment waive reading of information
impactiii 2024-10-07 07:14 p.m.
defendant enters plea of not guilty
impactiiiwaive arraignment waive reading of information
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:18 p.m.
Please provide a written waiver of arraignment to the Court indicating the Defendants intentions to waive formal arraignment and enter a plea of not guilty for the listed counts(and please list them on the waiver).
impactiii 2024-10-07 07:19 p.m.
bro
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:19 p.m.
I am entering a plea of not guilty.
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:19 p.m.
You have to enter your plea during an arraignment, or if you choose to waive the arraignment, through the steps I just stated.
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:20 p.m.
Your honor, do you enjoy reading? Does it satisfy your mind?
Doogy 2024-10-07 07:20 p.m.
That's not relevant but yes.
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:20 p.m.
Just a question, thank you for answering 
El Taco Man 2024-10-07 07:34 p.m.
Do you like @impactiii 's signature your honor? Or is it a too messy? Does his penmanship have to be advanced?
impactiii 2024-10-07 07:40 p.m.
CC: @El Taco Man , @Brit , @Doogy
I wasn't sure if I should sign the document in Times New Roman or Arial so I settled for just a hand signature to meet Your Honor's standards.
(bolded to accommodate those with visual deficiencies)
Language Accommodations:
No estaba seguro de si debía firmar el documento en Times New Roman o Arial, así que me conformé con firmar a mano para cumplir con los estándares de Su Señoría.
Es ist nicht sicher, ob ich das Dokument in Times New Roman oder Arial festschreiben muss, da ich mich mit der Firma zufrieden gebe, um es mit den Ständen Ihrer Señoría zu verknüpfen.
我不确定是否应该用 Times New Roman 或 Arial 签署该文件，因此我决定只手写签名以满足法官大人的标准。
For a PDF accessible version of this message, please see the attached Message.pdf file.
-# This message was sent in accordance with the Court's COVID-19 remote litigation protocols.
(bolded to accommodate those with visual deficiencies)
Language Accommodations:
No estaba seguro de si debía firmar el documento en Times New Roman o Arial, así que me conformé con firmar a mano para cumplir con los estándares de Su Señoría.
Es ist nicht sicher, ob ich das Dokument in Times New Roman oder Arial festschreiben muss, da ich mich mit der Firma zufrieden gebe, um es mit den Ständen Ihrer Señoría zu verknüpfen.
我不确定是否应该用 Times New Roman 或 Arial 签署该文件，因此我决定只手写签名以满足法官大人的标准。
-# This message was sent in accordance with the Court's COVID-19 remote litigation protocols.
50.73 KB
Doogy 2024-10-07 08:14 p.m.
Very well, the waiver is accepted.
Doogy 2024-10-07 08:15 p.m.
Pretrial has officially started upon the presence of the defendant post-summons. Pretrial will end 8:00 p.m. or earlier by agreement of both parties.
At this time discovery is also officially commenced and will remain open until8:00 p.m. as well or otherwise sooner by agreement of both parties.
cc:@impactiii @El Taco Man @Brit
At this time discovery is also officially commenced and will remain open until
cc:
impactiii 2024-10-08 01:00 a.m.DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACO’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS
CC:@Doogy @Brit @El Taco Man
El Taco Man 2024-10-08 01:01 a.m.
Your honor, I recall you enjoy reading?
impactiii 2024-10-08 02:58 p.m.DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF BRADY V. MARYLAND DISCLOSURES
CC:@Doogy @Brit @El Taco Man
Brit 2024-10-08 02:58 p.m.
You've already sent this, why did you re-send it?
impactiii 2024-10-08 02:58 p.m.
I spelled his name wrong
impactiiiI spelled his name wrong
Doogy 2024-10-08 03:46 p.m.
Please don’t delete or edit any messages in the case channel in the future.
DoogyPlease don’t delete or edit any messages in the case channel in the future.
impactiii 2024-10-08 03:55 p.m.
can they have a timeline to respond
impactiii 2024-10-08 03:55 p.m.
24 hours
impactiii 2024-10-08 03:55 p.m.
or 48
impactiii 2024-10-08 04:30 p.m.DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS FROM THE INFORMATION AS PREJUDICIAL SURPLUSAGE
CC:@Doogy @Brit @El Taco Man
Brit 2024-10-08 04:31 p.m.
A third motion
Brit 2024-10-08 04:31 p.m.
You already have an MTD on this yet you're making an MTS?
impactiii 2024-10-08 04:32 p.m.
The defense is allowed to make as many motions as it pleases
impactiii 2024-10-08 04:32 p.m.
If you didn't want this to happen, then maybe you shouldn't have accused him
impactiii 2024-10-08 04:32 p.m.
We have a right to prepare a defense
Brit 2024-10-08 04:42 p.m.
You're only wasting your time not mine
BritYou're only wasting your time not mine
impactiii 2024-10-08 04:49 p.m.
Make sure to disclose that evidence instead of ignoring the defenses’s request
impactiiiMake sure to disclose that evidence instead of ignoring the defenses’s request
Brit 2024-10-08 05:04 p.m.
All relevant disclosures will be made within the period provided by the court
Doogy 2024-10-08 05:04 p.m.@urinal cake added.
Doogy 2024-10-08 05:06 p.m.
I would just like to state to all parties that currently documents cannot be added to the case card on the Trellos until the Courts figure out the whole "trello premium" situation(apparently you gotta pay for this shit now).
DoogyI would just like to state to all parties that currently documents cannot be added to the case card on the Trellos until the Courts figure out the whole "trello premium" situation(...
Brit 2024-10-08 05:07 p.m.
Crazy
Brit 2024-10-08 05:07 p.m.
Trello is tryna bring down its own company
DoogyI would just like to state to all parties that currently documents cannot be added to the case card on the Trellos until the Courts figure out the whole "trello premium" situation(...
impactiii 2024-10-08 05:10 p.m.
Please set a timeline for responses
Doogy 2024-10-08 05:12 p.m.
Please file any responses to any of the motions within 4 days by 5:00 p.m. 9 months ago . @Brit @urinal cake
DoogyPlease file any responses to any of the motions within 4 days by 5:00 p.m. 9 months ago . @Brit @urinal cake
Brit 2024-10-08 05:12 p.m.
Understood
urinal cake 2024-10-08 05:12 p.m.
happily
BritAll relevant disclosures will be made within the period provided by the court
impactiii 2024-10-08 05:20 p.m.
When would that be
impactiii 2024-10-08 05:20 p.m.
What day?
impactiiiWhat day?
Brit 2024-10-08 05:25 p.m.
If you look at the messages from the court you can see the relevant deadlines
BritIf you look at the messages from the court you can see the relevant deadlines
impactiii 2024-10-08 05:48 p.m.
do you have the evidence?
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-08 05:55 p.m.@Doogy Also, if this order is granted, I'd prefer that a deadline be set for a timely disclosure of all Brady material, such as 3 days before the discovery deadline, so the 15th
impactiii 2024-10-08 07:10 p.m.DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE STATE’S WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LISTS
CC:@Doogy @Brit @El Taco Man
urinal cake 2024-10-08 09:08 p.m.
brother
urinal cake 2024-10-08 09:08 p.m.
you are compelling us to submit what we already plan on submitting
urinal cake 2024-10-08 09:08 p.m.
stop wasting your time
impactiii 2024-10-08 09:36 p.m.
I hope you like reading
El Taco Man 2024-10-08 10:26 p.m.
Just as much as Judge Nomadity I'd hope...
impactiii 2024-10-09 03:25 a.m.DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL
CC:@Doogy @urinal cake @Brit
Doogy 2024-10-10 11:40 a.m.@Deverus added.
impactiii 2024-10-10 11:47 a.m.
1v3
impactiii 2024-10-10 11:47 a.m.
Crazy
urinal cake 2024-10-10 05:50 p.m.
cc @impactiii @Doogy
urinal cakecc @impactiii @Doogy
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:52 p.m. 
urinal cake 2024-10-10 05:52 p.m.
i asked why he was trying to get me fired..?
urinal cake 2024-10-10 05:52 p.m.
what does any of this have to do with the case?
urinal cake 2024-10-10 05:52 p.m.@Doogy
Doogy 2024-10-10 05:53 p.m.
It has nothing to do with the case. I do not see the relevance of what you've just sent. @impactiii
urinal cake 2024-10-10 05:53 p.m.
flooding the case channel with videos and pictures
Doogy 2024-10-10 05:53 p.m.
Nor is any of it admissible.
DoogyIt has nothing to do with the case. I do not see the relevance of what you've just sent. @impactiii
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:53 p.m.
Huh?
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:53 p.m.
How is it not relevant
urinal cake 2024-10-10 05:53 p.m.
???
urinal cake 2024-10-10 05:54 p.m.
this is a criminal prosecution against tacos
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:54 p.m.
It's a former interaction between the prosecutor and the defendant
urinal cake 2024-10-10 05:54 p.m.
my alleged misconduct is nowhere near relevant
Doogy 2024-10-10 05:54 p.m.
How would that be relevant for your criminal defense of iSpilledMyTacos?
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:54 p.m.
where the defendant got the prosecutor fired
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:54 p.m.
it's a motion to disqualifty the counsel
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:54 p.m.
not to ther merits of the case
urinal cake 2024-10-10 05:54 p.m.
refer to my motion please
urinal cake 2024-10-10 05:54 p.m.
there's a standard for disqualification
urinal cake 2024-10-10 05:54 p.m.
you have not met that standard
Brit 2024-10-10 05:54 p.m.
Your Honour, this seems like a personal issue the defence has, which should be addressed in private. not open court
Doogy 2024-10-10 05:55 p.m.
I agree. Also, if any evidence that is relevant and you wish for it to be submitted, please do so in the proper format instead of just sending images and links into the chat.
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:55 p.m.
I don't think you're understanding what the motion was about, to be honest @Doogy
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:56 p.m.
It's not a motion on the merits of the case
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:56 p.m.
It's not a motion to dismiss
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:56 p.m.
It's a motion to disqualify @urinal cake as counsel because he has a conflict of interest here
Doogy 2024-10-10 05:56 p.m.
I haven't read any of the motions yet, but you also did not specify that you were sending any evidence to support the motion. So I took the sent material at its face value which seems irrelevant without context, hence why I stated that if you wish to add any evidence to the record that you do so in the proper style.
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:56 p.m.
I'll annex some exhibits to it
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:57 p.m.
I have a video
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:57 p.m.
Not the incident video but of the conversations
Doogy 2024-10-10 05:57 p.m.
You can submit it as exhibits to support the motion if that is what it pertains to.
impactiii 2024-10-10 05:57 p.m.
Yep
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-10 06:01 p.m.DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL
Exhibit A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By3damieoBQ
(DMs between ISpilledMyTacos and DAG ElloM8HowAreYou in regards to Ello's firing)
Exhibit B: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGiYRZ6tHpo
(DMs between ISpilledMyTacos and AG mandatorymorale in regards to Ello's firing)
Exhibit C: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R521fjg9tI
(Video of incident that lead to Ello being fired; the video was sent by Tacos to relevant CCSO and LETI heads)@Doogy
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:02 p.m.
Is that better
Doogy 2024-10-10 06:02 p.m.
Did you alter the motion at all or is that an identical pdf to the original one sent
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:02 p.m.
No its identical
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:02 p.m.
Just annex with exhibits
Doogy 2024-10-10 06:02 p.m.
OK. That's fine.
impactiiiJust annex with exhibits
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:02 p.m.
annexed*
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:02 p.m.
Ty
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:06 p.m.
standing ovation for that damning evidence
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:07 p.m.MOTIONS TO BE REVIEWED
1. Motion Seq. #001 - Motion to Dismiss
CC:@Doogy (for your convenience sir)
1. Motion Seq. #001 - Motion to Dismiss
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1282914828780048405/1293075628249055272
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1282914828780048405/1293286316187979818
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1282914828780048405/1293309673004335165
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1282914828780048405/1293349952575246378
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1282914828780048405/1294057268933034025
CC:
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:07 p.m.
we get it
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:07 p.m.
Doogy 2024-10-10 06:08 p.m.
yeah im going to take a look at them after the 12th to give plaintiff enough time to send any responses they wish
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:08 p.m.
sounds good
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:08 p.m.
ty
urinal cakestanding ovation for that damning evidence
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:22 p.m.
why'd your leti get blacklisted again?
impactiiiwhy'd your leti get blacklisted again?
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:23 p.m. 
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:23 p.m.
couldnt tell you
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:23 p.m.
please refrain from asking inflammatory questions
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:23 p.m.
would you swear in an affidavit that your leti was never blacklisted
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:23 p.m.
in clark county
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:24 p.m.
no? it was revoked, but it has since been restored. let's stay on topic
urinal cakeno? it was revoked, but it has since been restored. let's stay on topic
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:27 p.m.
i asked if you would swear an affidavit
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:27 p.m.
shouldn't be that hard if it's not true
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:28 p.m.
your job as a prosecutor is to uphold public confidence
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:28 p.m.
if your role in upholding that confidence is being called into question
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:28 p.m.
you should do everything you can to quell that doubt
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:29 p.m.
what are you on about
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:31 p.m.
also the standard you cited
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:31 p.m.
thats the standard for selective prosecution
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:31 p.m.
not disqualification
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:31 p.m.
United States v. Thorpe, 471 F.3d, 652 (6th Cir. 2006)
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:34 p.m.@Doogy
Doogy 2024-10-10 06:36 p.m.
Once again, not relevant.
DoogyOnce again, not relevant.
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:37 p.m.
I know you're only saying that because you didn't read the motions yet
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:37 p.m.
But it would be really helpful if you did
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:39 p.m.
have you ever been in a trial before
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:39 p.m.
this is embarrassing
DoogyOnce again, not relevant.
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:40 p.m.
Basically, in his response to the motion to disqualify counsel he cited the standard for "selective prosecution" (which is not anywhere close to disqualification) as the standard to disqualify a prosecutor
The case he cited was United States v. Thorpe, 471 F.3d, 652 (6th Cir. 2006), which basically articulates that to demonstrate a "selective prosecution," a defendant has to show that prejudice by clear and convincing evidence
Again, the original motion to disqualify isn't about a selective prosecution, so it's not relevant. I'm just addressing what they said in their response (by citing the wrong standard)
The actual standard for disqualification, as I put in my motion, is only the appearance of impropriety
The case he cited was United States v. Thorpe, 471 F.3d, 652 (6th Cir. 2006), which basically articulates that to demonstrate a "selective prosecution," a defendant has to show that prejudice by clear and convincing evidence
Again, the original motion to disqualify isn't about a selective prosecution, so it's not relevant. I'm just addressing what they said in their response (by citing the wrong standard)
The actual standard for disqualification, as I put in my motion, is only the appearance of impropriety
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:40 p.m.
There's your context
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:41 p.m.@Doogy 
Doogy 2024-10-10 06:43 p.m.
Okay, I mean it just seems more like you're attacking his character rather than putting forth testimony to support your motion, but yes, that is once again taken at face value without context of the contents of the motion.
Doogy 2024-10-10 06:43 p.m.
It may have just benefitted you more to include all relevant information in the motion itself.
Doogy 2024-10-10 06:43 p.m.
And if you did, then there's no reason to continue speaking points about it.
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:43 p.m.
I'll probably end up replying to their response just to clear things up so you can get the full picture once again
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:44 p.m.
Written form, obviously
Doogy 2024-10-10 06:44 p.m.
If there is any additional context to add to your motion or in response to their response to your motion, you can reply to it.
Doogy 2024-10-10 06:44 p.m.
Through a formal response, obviously.
El Taco Man 2024-10-10 06:45 p.m.
Your honor, is the blunt good? Could you pass some to the prosecution? They seem to be needing it more than us.
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:46 p.m.
what
Deverus 2024-10-10 06:46 p.m.
it would appear as if the defendant is implying his honour is smoking some of the good gush.
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:46 p.m.
god forbid one prosecutor gets disqualified
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:46 p.m.
not like we have an entire department staffed with prosecutors
urinal cakenot like we have an entire department staffed with prosecutors
impactiii 2024-10-10 06:47 p.m.
What does that mean
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:47 p.m.
it means that the justice department employs prosecutors..?
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:47 p.m.
what
El Taco Man 2024-10-10 06:47 p.m.
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:49 p.m.
awesome
El Taco Man Server2024-10-10 06:50 p.m.
urinal cake 2024-10-10 06:50 p.m.@Doogy
Doogy 2024-10-10 06:54 p.m.
Please refrain from sending nonsense into the proceedings or I will find you in contempt. @El Taco Man
El Taco Man 2024-10-10 06:54 p.m.
Excuse me your honor, I heard you blasting this in your chambers.. thought you were a fan. 
impactiii 2024-10-10 08:44 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-10-10 08:44 p.m.
this was made known to me so i'd just like to put it here on the record
impactiii 2024-10-10 08:44 p.m.@Doogy just bringing it to your attention
urinal cake 2024-10-10 08:44 p.m. 
urinal cake 2024-10-10 08:44 p.m.@Doogy just bringing it to your attention
urinal cake 2024-10-10 08:45 p.m.
could you be a more irrational attorney
urinal cake 2024-10-10 08:45 p.m.
you waited 15 seconds before posting it here
urinal cake 2024-10-10 08:45 p.m.
take a second to get some context
Deverus 2024-10-10 08:45 p.m.
yes i am hiring people
impactiii 2024-10-10 08:45 p.m.
what a nice guy the DAG is
impactiii 2024-10-10 08:45 p.m.
not hostile at all
Deverus 2024-10-10 08:46 p.m.
alas im not sure what relevance my hiring practices have in this case
impactiiinot hostile at all
urinal cake 2024-10-10 08:46 p.m.
you're just making yourself look silly by posting things that yield no fruit
urinal cake 2024-10-10 08:46 p.m.
simply trying to help
Brit 2024-10-11 04:59 p.m.@Doogy Your Honour all of this is immaterial and frankly the conduct of the defence counsel is unprofessional and a misrepresentation of the Bar. I ask the court take preventive measures to stop further such action from occurring.
Doogy 2024-10-11 07:08 p.m.
I've already warned them in terms of risking contempt of court.
El Taco Man 2024-10-11 07:48 p.m.
The counsel or me? I am not representing myself so frankly I believe that is irrelevant.
El Taco Man 2024-10-11 07:49 p.m.
My counsel however has remained professional to the standards of the Bar.
El Taco Man 2024-10-11 07:51 p.m.
Anyways, thank you your honor. I'll be sure to be more respectful to the prosecution. But you do like KSI's new song correct?
urinal cakecc @impactiii @Doogy
impactiii 2024-10-12 03:17 a.m.DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
CC:@urinal cake @Doogy @Brit @Deverus @El Taco Man
[Attachment A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By3damieoBQ)
[Attachment B](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LeAjonnerIq_Ebb4D2itdOEAx-eHjGwl/view?usp=sharing)
[Attachment C](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R521fjg9tI)
[Attachment D](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nZ1CuAHkSMAaBGDXh2pS2dCa2HLW5pm17gjhdnfbQ_Q/edit?usp=sharing)
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:03 a.m.@singhski added.
impactiii
singhski 2024-10-12 10:19 a.m.
Just to be clear, is this a sur-reply?
singhski 2024-10-12 10:21 a.m.
Okay, so it isn't so @Doogy please deny the filing of that document.
singhski 2024-10-12 10:22 a.m.
Otherwise what it will lead to will be an uncontrollable fission of replies to replies to replies
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:29 a.m.
That's pretty much the only permitted reply at the moment as long as it doesnt address anything other than arguments or facts presented by the state in their response.
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:29 a.m.
Frankly speaking though, it is odd to me that there is so much focus on the motion to disqualify rather than any of the other ones.
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:29 a.m.
The deadline for any responses is later today.
DoogyThat's pretty much the only permitted reply at the moment as long as it doesnt address anything other than arguments or facts presented by the state in their response.
singhski 2024-10-12 10:30 a.m.
The only permitted reply to a reply is if the State's reply addresses new/different issues.
singhski 2024-10-12 10:30 a.m.
It does not.
singhski 2024-10-12 10:31 a.m.
A "sur-reply"
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:35 a.m.
I've only briefly skimmed through all of these filings until tonight and the days following. Based on what I've read through, it seems that the plaintiff's response does not introduce any new facts but instead argues against the defense's claims based on speculative or hypothetical ideas with a lack of evidence.
Subsequently, the defendant's reply in opposition seems to also not introduce any new facts but rather counters the state's arguments based on the interpretation of legal precedent. Since the reply seems to address and counter the arguments made in the state's response, I believe it stays within the scope of the discussion raised in the response. Due to the reply responding to legal interpretations argued in the state's response, it will be permitted at this time.
Subsequently, the defendant's reply in opposition seems to also not introduce any new facts but rather counters the state's arguments based on the interpretation of legal precedent. Since the reply seems to address and counter the arguments made in the state's response, I believe it stays within the scope of the discussion raised in the response. Due to the reply responding to legal interpretations argued in the state's response, it will be permitted at this time.
DoogyI've only briefly skimmed through all of these filings until tonight and the days following. Based on what I've read through, it seems that the plaintiff's response does not introd...
singhski 2024-10-12 10:36 a.m.
Okay, so would a reply to the reply in opposition be permitted?
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:38 a.m.
Once again, frankly, this is a very odd thing to be held up on especially seeing as you have yet another attorney present in the proceedings. I'd say that any further arguments would be more permissible in trial, if we go to trial, rather than allowing, as you stated, an endless stream of replies to replies.
DoogyOnce again, frankly, this is a very odd thing to be held up on especially seeing as you have yet another attorney present in the proceedings. I'd say that any further arguments wou...
singhski 2024-10-12 10:39 a.m.
Why is the standard different for the State and the Defendant? It would be extremely prejudicial to consider a motion to disqualify counsel if the State isn't able to reply to the reply.
singhski 2024-10-12 10:40 a.m.
It's a violation of the judicial canons frankly.
singhski 2024-10-12 10:41 a.m.
If the reply is just a re-iteration of the motion, that's more reason to deny its filing because what it encourages is just that, replies to replies.
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:42 a.m.
It's as you stated, there was a motion, a response and now a reply filed. Typically, at this point, any additional reply, such as a sur-reply from the state, would generally only be allowed with court permission. I retract what I said about arguing this in trial as it wouldn't be relevant due to its nature solely as a pre-trial argument that should be resolved before trial as it could impact the trial itself.
DoogyIt's as you stated, there was a motion, a response and now a reply filed. Typically, at this point, any additional reply, such as a sur-reply from the state, would generally only b...
singhski 2024-10-12 10:44 a.m.
It's extremely simple: Motion --> Reply --> Reply makes additional arguments --> Sur-reply.
What your honor is suggesting is this: Motion --> Reply --> Reply to the reply --> Sur-reply.
What your honor is suggesting is this: Motion --> Reply --> Reply to the reply --> Sur-reply.
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:45 a.m.
This is pretty typical procedure to allow one motion from the defendant, one response from the plaintiff and one reply from the defendant. This would not be considered prejudicial as long as both parties had a fair opportunity to present their arguments. Further replies or sur-replies are typically rare and are usually only granted if new issues are raised in the reply that the state did not have a chance to address. As we have both agreed, no new arguments were raised in the state's response or the defendant's reply, therefore I am not permitting any additional reply or sur-reply at this time. After I actually read the motions and replies, perhaps it may be permitted if necessary at that time, but currently, it is not.
DoogyThis is pretty typical procedure to allow one motion from the defendant, one response from the plaintiff and one reply from the defendant. This would not be considered prejudicial ...
singhski 2024-10-12 10:45 a.m.
"as long as both parties had a fair opportunity to present their arguments" You see the problem?
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:46 a.m.
I do not. As stated, this is nothing out of the norm for how a pre-trial motion with responses/replies would typically play out.
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:46 a.m.
If no new facts or arguments were presented, then there would be no further need for any additional replies or sur-replies.
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:47 a.m.
If, after I read the filings, it is determined that the matter is still not satisfied to a degree to conclude the matter based on the currently presented materials, then perhaps additional replies or sur-replies would be permitted, just not at this current point in time.
DoogyIf no new facts or arguments were presented, then there would be no further need for any additional replies or sur-replies.
singhski 2024-10-12 10:48 a.m.
There is no need for an additional reply, that is what I am saying. Read the motion and the reply, you will find that no new issues have been raised, therefore, another reply is not warranted.
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:50 a.m.
I've already stated, the reply to the response stays within the scope of the discussion raised in the response and therefore addresses supposed issues with legal interpretations raised in the response. The reply is addressing the state's arguments made in the response and would be permissible.
DoogyI've already stated, the reply to the response stays within the scope of the discussion raised in the response and therefore addresses supposed issues with legal interpretations ra...
singhski 2024-10-12 11:00 a.m.
"reply to the response stays within the scope of the discussion raised in the response and therefore addresses supposed issues" This is the issue.
singhski 2024-10-12 11:01 a.m.
In that case, we will be replying to the response and we will stay within the scope of the discussion. Thanks.
Doogy 2024-10-12 11:01 a.m.
Your reply would be denied. I've already stated, at this time, no additional replies or sur-replies will be permitted for this particular motion.
Doogy 2024-10-12 11:01 a.m.
You are still free to respond to any of the other pending motions.
DoogyYour reply would be denied. I've already stated, at this time, no additional replies or sur-replies will be permitted for this particular motion.
singhski 2024-10-12 11:02 a.m.
What is the difference which permits the Defense to reply to the response?
singhski 2024-10-12 11:03 a.m.
It's not a sur-reply, so what is the difference?
Doogy 2024-10-12 11:06 a.m.
The difference lies within the standard procedure for motion practice in most US(UoC) courts, which typically allows for a motion, a response from the opposing party, and a reply by the moving party(in this case, the defense). The state's response to the motion was a part of this sequence, as was the defense's reply to the addressed points raised in that response. By definition, your reply would be a sur-reply as it is a further response filed by the opposing party to the motion. Once again, this lies within the standard procedure for motion practice as at this point any sur-reply would have to be permitted by the court in order to avoid any continuous back and forth filings of replies. So your argument that your additional filing wouldn't be a sur-reply is incorrect as you are responding to a reply as the opposing party, which is the definition of a sur-reply.
Doogy 2024-10-12 11:17 a.m.
I'd also like to state for clarification for all involved parties that these motions will be ruled on within chronological order of submission. This would be as so:
1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss
2. The Defendant's motion to compel (Brady disclosures)
3. The Defendant's motion to strike
4. The Defendant's motion to compel (production of exhibits and witnesses)
5. The Defendant's motion to disqualify(and its subsequent response and reply)
It is possible that the argument we are discussing today may not ever even be relevant based on the possibility of the first motion being ruled on favorly. To reiterate, I have not read any motion in its entirety yet and have not formulated any sort of opinion on any motion yet, I am simply stating this for clarification on how the rulings will be presented and how this may affect either party and the case in regards to these motions were any of them to be accepted by the Court.
cc:@singhski @Brit @urinal cake @Deverus @impactiii
1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss
2. The Defendant's motion to compel (Brady disclosures)
3. The Defendant's motion to strike
4. The Defendant's motion to compel (production of exhibits and witnesses)
5. The Defendant's motion to disqualify(and its subsequent response and reply)
It is possible that the argument we are discussing today may not ever even be relevant based on the possibility of the first motion being ruled on favorly. To reiterate, I have not read any motion in its entirety yet and have not formulated any sort of opinion on any motion yet, I am simply stating this for clarification on how the rulings will be presented and how this may affect either party and the case in regards to these motions were any of them to be accepted by the Court.
cc:
impactiii 2024-10-12 11:17 a.m.
Deverus 2024-10-12 03:28 p.m.
cc: @Doogy @impactiii
urinal cake 2024-10-12 04:54 p.m.@Doogy
urinal cake 2024-10-12 04:55 p.m.
for the motion to compel would you just like to put one of us under oath and ask if we've produced everything we're in possession of
urinal cake 2024-10-12 04:55 p.m.
so you don't have to waste your time writing
urinal cake 2024-10-12 04:55 p.m.
because nobody voluntarily submits to writing unnecessary things unless they have nothing better going on in their lives
urinal cakeso you don't have to waste your time writing
impactiii 2024-10-12 07:26 p.m.
He can just do a minute order
impactiii 2024-10-12 07:26 p.m.
Where he says it’s granted or denied
impactiii 2024-10-12 07:26 p.m.
On the record
impactiii 2024-10-12 10:08 p.m.@Doogy You’re not ruling tonight are you
impactiii 2024-10-12 10:08 p.m.
I don’t mind as long as it’s like all before the 15th
Doogy 2024-10-12 10:10 p.m.
Probably not
Doogy 2024-10-13 12:50 p.m.
The ruling on the motion to dismiss as has been posted in rulings . Subsequent ruling on the remaining motions will be later today or the following days.
@impactiii @Brit @urinal cake @Deverus @singhski
singhski 2024-10-13 01:04 p.m.@Doogy Thanks.
Deverus 2024-10-13 04:45 p.m.
cc: @impactiii @Doogy
DoogyI'd also like to state for clarification for all involved parties that these motions will be ruled on within chronological order of submission. This would be as so: 1. The Defendan...
Doogy 2024-10-13 11:35 p.m.
Does this satisfy everything requested in the motions to compel listed here? @Deverus
Doogy 2024-10-13 11:38 p.m.
I have yet to rule on the motions to compel but I believe it would be prudent for the state to submit a sworn affidavit attesting that all materials requested in the Defendant's motions have been provided. If this is submitted, then I will deny the motions as moot, or the Defendant and their counsel may withdraw them if they wish to.
cc:@impactiii @urinal cake @Brit @singhski @Deverus
cc:
impactiii 2024-10-13 11:39 p.m.
mtc exhibit can be dismissed as moot
impactiii 2024-10-13 11:39 p.m.
mtc brady affidavit will suffice
impactiii 2024-10-13 11:39 p.m.
as long as i get to review it
Doogy 2024-10-13 11:40 p.m.
I'll simply wait for the state to submit the affidavit to satisfy both motions to compel. In the mean time, I will focus my attention to the motion to strike followed by the motion to disqualify with its related response and reply.
impactiii 2024-10-13 11:40 p.m.
okie
Deverus 2024-10-14 12:21 a.m.
State's Affidavit Certifying Brady Disclosure
[Appendix A](https://imgur.com/a/OB9IAxm)
Deverus 2024-10-14 12:21 a.m.
making me work on my sunday i see.
Deverus 2024-10-14 12:21 a.m.
cc: @Doogy @impactiii
DeverusState's Affidavit Certifying Brady Disclosure [Appendix A](https://imgur.com/a/OB9IAxm)
impactiii 2024-10-14 12:24 a.m.
devers you lied in the affidavit but not on purpose
impactiii 2024-10-14 12:24 a.m.
notjedi is jedi's crime alt
impactiii 2024-10-14 12:24 a.m.
it has a criminal record
impactiiidevers you lied in the affidavit but not on purpose
Deverus 2024-10-14 12:24 a.m.
notjedi is not a witness in this case.
impactiii 2024-10-14 12:25 a.m.
is this nexu
impactiii 2024-10-14 12:25 a.m.
bruh
impactiii 2024-10-14 12:25 a.m.
im finished
impactiii 2024-10-14 12:25 a.m.
someone give me contempt
Doogy 2024-10-14 12:34 a.m.
Alright so the affidavit seems to be sufficient to satisfy the Brady disclosures.
Doogy 2024-10-14 12:35 a.m.
The two motions to compel are hereby denied as they are considered moot at this point.
cc:@urinal cake @Brit @singhski @Deverus @impactiii
cc:
impactiii 2024-10-14 01:27 a.m.DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
CC:@Doogy @urinal cake @Brit @singhski @Deverus
[Attachment A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By3damieoBQ)
[Attachment B](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LeAjonnerIq_Ebb4D2itdOEAx-eHjGwl/view)
[Attachment C](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R521fjg9tI)
[Attachment D](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-M6LP0jFhnHZgvFrHIU0hm6PYWNRG6Q6/view?usp=sharing)
[Attachment E](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nZ1CuAHkSMAaBGDXh2pS2dCa2HLW5pm17gjhdnfbQ_Q/edit?usp=sharing)
impactiii 2024-10-14 01:27 a.m.
oh my god
impactiii 2024-10-14 01:27 a.m.
the embeds
impactiii 2024-10-14 01:28 a.m.
im so sorry
impactiii 2024-10-14 01:36 a.m.NOTICE OF APOLOGY
CC:@Doogy @urinal cake @Brit @singhski @Deverus @El Taco Man
Deverus 2024-10-14 01:42 a.m.
good grief.
impactiii 2024-10-14 01:44 a.m.
The only words I wanna hear from you right now are “I accept your apology”
Doogy 2024-10-14 05:46 a.m.
If you click the X on one of the embeds you can remove the embeds if you didn’t want them to show.
Doogy 2024-10-14 05:47 a.m.
Or on mobile hold down on the message and there’s a remove embeds option.
Doogy 2024-10-14 03:52 p.m.
The ruling on the motion to strike has been posted in rulings . The last pending motion is the motion to disqualify, which will be ruled on today or tomorrow.
cc:@impactiii @Brit @urinal cake @singhski @Deverus
cc:
Doogy 2024-10-14 03:54 p.m.
or sorry, not the last pending i suppose
Doogy 2024-10-14 03:54 p.m.
last pending from the original submissions I mean
DoogyThe ruling on the motion to strike has been posted in rulings . The last pending motion is the motion to disqualify, which will be ruled on today or tomorrow. cc: <@...
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:54 p.m.
okay respectfully the purpose of the information is to inform the defendant of the charges. not to detail the prosecution's theory of the case
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:55 p.m.
"the language in question used in the criminal information is relevant to establishing the Defendant's intent and that it supports the prosecution's burden of proving malice aforethought."
the thing about no threat was irrelevant
the thing about no threat was irrelevant
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:55 p.m.
That on or about June 7, 2021, the Defendant, Richard Alexander Murdaugh, in Colleton County, did kill another person with malice aforethought; to wit: Richard Alexander Murdaugh did fatally shoot the victim, Margaret "Maggie" Kennedy Branstetter Murdaugh, with a rifle, and Maggie Murdaugh did die as a proximate result thereof. All in violation of Section 16-3-10 of the S.C. Code of Laws, as amended.
Against the peace and dignity of the State, and contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.
Against the peace and dignity of the State, and contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:55 p.m.
heres an example of a real life murder count
Doogy 2024-10-14 03:55 p.m.
The criminal information should not need to provide an exhaustive narrative, but it should give enough context to outline the prosecution's intentions.
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:55 p.m.
they didnt put "alex murdaugh killed her even when she was screaming"
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:55 p.m.
that'd be. sriken
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:56 p.m.
striken*
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:56 p.m.
stricken*
Doogy 2024-10-14 03:56 p.m.
When discussing factual details relevant to proving elements of a charged crime, such as intent, or the circumstances and actions of the Defendant, then enough context outlined should be provided in the criminal information.
Doogy 2024-10-14 03:56 p.m.
Which as the ruling states, would be the case here.
Doogy 2024-10-14 03:57 p.m.
Their criminal information hardly goes into exhaustive detail, which I agree, would be a point reserved for trial and not the criminal information, which the primary concern of which should be to provide a factual and legal basis for the charges.
DoogyTheir criminal information hardly goes into exhaustive detail, which I agree, would be a point reserved for trial and not the criminal information, which the primary concern of whi...
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:58 p.m.
they did way too much
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:58 p.m.
the victim not being a threat is not an element of the offense that they will need to prove at trial
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:59 p.m.
you actually misinterpreted the purpose of an information by insinuating that they had to establish their theory of the case there
impactiii 2024-10-14 03:59 p.m.
they only need to inform the defendant of the specific elements of which he is being charged with under the statute
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:00 p.m.
Stating that the victim was not a threat indicates support for the element of intent and malice aforethought, which both the ruling states as well as their criminal information.
In terms of the criminal information, it specifically states "Aspenfun posed no threat to the defendant at the time of the incident.The aforementioned indicates that the defendant killed aspenfun wiht malice aforethought ".
In terms of the criminal information, it specifically states "Aspenfun posed no threat to the defendant at the time of the incident.
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:00 p.m.
The prosecution stated their intention of putting that detail there, and the court would agree.
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:00 p.m.
"Aspenfun posed no threat to the defendant at the time of the incident." is irrelevant
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:00 p.m.
and prejudicial
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:00 p.m.
with*
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:01 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:01 p.m.
even this is enough
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:01 p.m.
this is how an information should be
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:02 p.m.
not with stupid conclusory statements and "he fucking shot him in the face!!!!"
impactiii"Aspenfun posed no threat to the defendant at the time of the incident." is irrelevant
singhski 2024-10-14 04:02 p.m.
It’s not, as this Court has ruled, proving that there was a degree of wanton disregard for human life constitutes malice aforethought. It is key to the State’s case as we have an obligation to ensure charges are complaint with statutory requirements, i.e malice aforethought.
singhski 2024-10-14 04:03 p.m.
It helps you mount a defense if anything, if you want it taken away, you impede your right to mount a defense and I would really recommend that you don’t do so if you don’t want your capability as an attorney questioned by the Defendant later on in an appeal.
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:04 p.m.
It's not irrelevant or prejudicial in the context it was provided in, which was to prove malice aforethought. The matter of proving intent from the prosecution's perspective is to demonstrate that the defendant's malice aforethought or reckless disregard for human life was evident. The fact that they stated the victim posed "no threat" can be directly relevant to proving that the Defendant's actions were not in self defense or under duress but rather intentional and malicious. It also is a preemptive measure on the prosecution's behalf to provide early protection against defense strategies of self defense claims or justification, which this statement would directly counter by establishing that there was no imminent threat from the victim. In addition, although the statement may portray the Defendant's actions in a negative light, it is fact-based and addresses the circumstances of the incident. It's often allowed in Courts in the US to allow language that provides necessary factual context, especially if in support of a key element of a charge, such as intent. The case mentioned in the ruling, United States v. Johnson, 231 F.3d 43, 47 (D.C. Cir. 2000) , sets a basis that language is typically considered prejudicial only if it is designed to mislead or inflame the Court. In this case, the statement is found to be neither misleading nor exaggerated but rather a factual assertion that the prosecution must prove to the Court.
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:05 p.m.
you keep going back to the elements and it's a circular argument that proves you wrong each time
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:05 p.m.
"that the prosecution must prove to the Court."
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:05 p.m.
no threat is not an element
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:05 p.m.
they dont need to prove that
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:05 p.m.
they could've just done this:
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:06 p.m.
I don't think you're comprehending.
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:06 p.m.
The language they used in the criminal information is used to assist in their burden to prove intent and malice aforethought.
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:06 p.m.
The language itself that was used is not an element.
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:07 p.m.
"On or about XX, September, 2024, the defendant, ISpilledMyTacos, with malice aforethought, did kill Aspenfun, to wit, by shooting him with XX and causing him to die as proximate result thereof."
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:07 p.m.
that would suffice
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:08 p.m.
you don't even need the to wit part either
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:08 p.m.
That would suffice, as does the current contents of the criminal information. Both are permissible with the vernacular within.
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:08 p.m.
as oppossed to
"On or about XX, September, 2024, the defendant, ISpilledMyTacos, with malice aforethought, did kill Aspenfun, to wit, by shooting him with XX and causing him to die as proximate result thereof. He kept shooting him. He shot him like 17 times even though he said "please dont shoot me!!!"
"On or about XX, September, 2024, the defendant, ISpilledMyTacos, with malice aforethought, did kill Aspenfun, to wit, by shooting him with XX and causing him to die as proximate result thereof. He kept shooting him. He shot him like 17 times even though he said "please dont shoot me!!!"
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:09 p.m.
That would be exaggerated, yes, but stating that the alleged victims had posed no threat to the defendant prior to the defendant's actions, is not exaggerated.
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:09 p.m.
And it is certainly not irrelevant.
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:09 p.m.
its irrelevant to the elements
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:09 p.m.
you inform them of the elements
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:10 p.m.
The element they have to prove is intent with malice aforethought, the language they provided assists in proving that.
singhski 2024-10-14 04:10 p.m.
How you think it should be written according to you rather than the statutory requirements is not sufficient for a motion to strike and/or a motion to dismiss.
impactiii"On or about XX, September, 2024, the defendant, ISpilledMyTacos, with malice aforethought, did kill Aspenfun, to wit, by shooting him with XX and causing him to die as proximate r...
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:10 p.m.
again, like i said, the information is not the mechanism for describing the prosecution's theory.
this is perfectly fine
this is perfectly fine
impactiiiClick to see attachment.
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:10 p.m.@singhski would you dismiss this?
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:10 p.m.
for failure to state an offense
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:10 p.m.
would you
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:11 p.m.
you're going to tell the real life judge that sat on that case
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:11 p.m.
It's not directly describing the prosecutions theory, which I already agreed with you should be a point to more so argue at trial, but it does directly support their claim of intent with malice aforethought.
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:11 p.m.
that that indictment fails to state an offense
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:11 p.m.
because it doesnt say "jordan neely didnt do anything wrong yet he was killed"
DoogyIt's not directly describing the prosecutions theory, which I already agreed with you should be a point to more so argue at trial, but it does directly support their claim of inten...
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:11 p.m.
i cant argue information defects at trial
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:11 p.m.
thats not a question of fact
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:13 p.m.
I'm not saying for you to argue information defects at trial, I am saying the prosecution must prove intent with malice aforethought at trial. It would be your duty to provide a defense to counter their attempts to prove the element. The information itself provided to the court merely provides a factual and legal basis for the court to take their case. The purpose of the information, contrary to what you're stating, is not to solely inform the defendant of their charges but to also provide the aforementioned factual and legal basis to the court to sufficiently meet their burden.
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:13 p.m.
in jury instructions
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:13 p.m.
if we had a jury
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:13 p.m.
lets say hypothetically
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:14 p.m.
jury instructions take from the information
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:14 p.m.
or the indictment as in irl
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:14 p.m.
they take the elements from the indictment that the prosecution alleged
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:14 p.m.
and they ask the jury
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:14 p.m.
"do you find that X did this?"
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:14 p.m.
if the jury was given these instructions
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:14 p.m.
here is how it would read
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:16 p.m.
Do you find that the defendant intentionally killed Aspenfun?
Do you find that the defendant killed Aspenfun despite him posing no threat?
Do you find that the defendant killed Aspenfun by firing two bullets causing him to die, then driving away?
and heres the actual elements of second degree murder:
Intentional killing
Do you find that the defendant killed Aspenfun despite him posing no threat?
Do you find that the defendant killed Aspenfun by firing two bullets causing him to die, then driving away?
and heres the actual elements of second degree murder:
Intentional killing
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:16 p.m.
WIth intent to kill or cause bodily harm
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:17 p.m.
Where in the world does that middle element come from
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:17 p.m.
Or even the last one
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:18 p.m.
I'm not sure why you are stating that the specific language used in the criminal information indicates that each sentence, or claim, or whatever have you, is it's own element. The statements used are collectively being used to prove the singular element of intent with malice aforethought.
DoogyI'm not sure why you are stating that the specific language used in the criminal information indicates that each sentence, or claim, or whatever have you, is it's own element. The ...
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:19 p.m.
"I'm not sure why you are stating that the specific language used in the criminal information indicates that each sentence, or claim, or whatever have you, is it's own element."
you should tell that to the state
you should tell that to the state
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:19 p.m.
I don't think they used the word element a single time in their criminal information.
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:20 p.m.
Nonetheless, I am not here to argue their perspective or your own, I am simply stating objectively what was provided to me meets the standards for the criminal information at a sufficient basis.
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:22 p.m.OKAY :
NOT OKAY :
"On or about September XX, 2024, the defendant, ISpilledMyTacos, with malice aforethought, did kill Aspenfun, to wit, by shooting him with a firearm, causing his death as a proximate result thereof."
"On or about September XX, 2024, the defendant, ISpilledMyTacos, did commit second-degree murder of tthelakes by discharging a firearm, resulting in the victim's death."
"On or about September XX, 2024, the defendant, ISpilledMyTacos, with malice aforethought, did kill Aspenfun, an innocent victim who was simply going about his day, by shooting him with a shiny silver pistol that was illegally obtained and modified, causing him to die as a proximate result thereof."
"On or about September XX, 2024, the defendant, ISpilledMyTacos, maliciously and intentionally did kill tthelakes, a beloved community member, by shooting him multiple times with a firearm that had been recently fired and had visible smoke coming from it, resulting in his tragic and untimely death."
"On or about September XX, 2024, the defendant, ISpilledMyTacos, did intentionally kill Aspenfun, who was unarmed and posed no threat whatsoever, with a firearm during a heated argument over taco toppings."
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:23 p.m.
date, defendant, intent, victim, method, and result
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:23 p.m.
anything else is surplusage
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:23 p.m.
and theres even a rule against it here!
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:23 p.m.
"No information entered into the court record shall contain surplusage."
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:23 p.m.
Mayfl. R. Crim. P. 3(2)(6)
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:24 p.m.
Yes, and the criminal information has been determined in two separate rulings on two separate motions to not contain surplusage.
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:25 p.m.
two of your rulings
impactiii 2024-10-14 04:25 p.m.your rulings
Doogy 2024-10-14 04:25 p.m.
The Court's rulings, yes.
urinal cake 2024-10-14 05:38 p.m.
swing and a miss from sadoimpacto
impactiii 2024-10-14 06:18 p.m.NOTICE OF APPEAL
CC:@Doogy @capsulesalesman
Deverus 2024-10-14 06:21 p.m.
saw that coming.
urinal cake 2024-10-14 07:03 p.m.
too much time on ur hands
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-15 12:01 a.m.@Doogy timeline to respojnd
impactiii 2024-10-15 12:02 a.m.
respond*
Doogy 2024-10-15 12:07 a.m.
Pretrial ends on the 18th so the 18th
impactiii 2024-10-15 08:52 p.m.@Doogy btw the disqualify motion?
Doogy 2024-10-15 08:53 p.m.
I'll get to it tonight or tomorrow.
Deverus 2024-10-16 02:28 p.m.
submitting reply to mtd2 today.
apologies for the wait, just rather bogged down with work/class/army bullshit
apologies for the wait, just rather bogged down with work/class/army bullshit
DoogyI'll get to it tonight or tomorrow.
impactiii 2024-10-16 07:42 p.m.
Tonight?
Doogy 2024-10-16 07:43 p.m.
Yes!
El Taco Man 2024-10-16 08:25 p.m.
Woo-hoo! Appreciate it your honor!
El Taco Man 2024-10-16 08:25 p.m.
El Taco ManWoo-hoo! Appreciate it your honor!
impactiii 2024-10-17 12:53 a.m.
Tonight! Can’t wait!
impactiii 2024-10-17 12:54 a.m.@Doogy Im baffled
Doogy 2024-10-17 12:55 a.m.
?
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 12:55 a.m.
It is.. 12:53 AM. October 17th.. Judge Nomadity.. where art thee
Doogy 2024-10-17 12:55 a.m.
It is indeed.
Doogy 2024-10-17 12:55 a.m.
That is still considered "tonight" by yesterday's standards.
Doogy 2024-10-17 12:55 a.m.
I don't appreciate the two of you attempting to be smartasses on the matter.
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 12:55 a.m.
sorry i like to be punctual
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 12:56 a.m.
i'm the rabbit w/ the watch
Doogy 2024-10-17 12:56 a.m.
sure whatever that means
Doogy 2024-10-17 12:56 a.m.
anyway, I'll release a ruling soon
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 12:56 a.m.
thx
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 12:56 a.m.
kinda saddens me u don't get that reference
El Taco Mani'm the rabbit w/ the watch
impactiii 2024-10-17 12:59 a.m.
Warning 1: Please don’t make references that judge nomadity doesn’t understand
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 01:00 a.m.
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 01:01 a.m.
alice in wonderland references aint up to legal standards nowadays
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:02 a.m.
i understand the reference but the rabbit wasn't punctual, that was sort of his whole shtick
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 01:02 a.m.
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:02 a.m.
anyway, standby, just reviewing the last of this like 12 case cited motion and responses
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 01:03 a.m.
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 01:03 a.m.
ruling*
impactiii 2024-10-17 01:14 a.m.
Standing by
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:17 a.m.
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:19 a.m.
Ruling on the motion to disqualify has been posted in rulings . @impactiii @Brit @Deverus @singhski @urinal cake
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:19 a.m.
Accordingly, @urinal cake is hereby disqualified from the case proceedings.
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:21 a.m.
Apologies, counsels,
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:21 a.m.
I appear to have referenced the incorrect exhibits.
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:21 a.m.
I will adjust the ruling accordingly.
impactiii 2024-10-17 01:21 a.m.
There’s two sets so I don’t blame you
impactiii 2024-10-17 01:21 a.m.
That was my bad
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 01:23 a.m.
And so there were three.
impactiii 2024-10-17 01:24 a.m.
He gotta fix it
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 01:24 a.m.
i want to see his wonderful ruling
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-17 01:26 a.m.
I’d like to incorporate the positive finding of impropriety as additional substance for this motion as well @Doogy
impactiii 2024-10-17 01:26 a.m.
For your future reading
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 01:34 a.m.
Where is the Judge's juicy ruler
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 01:34 a.m.
ruling*
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 01:34 a.m.
Sorry on mobile
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:39 a.m.
Okay, the ruling has been adjusted accordingly. The judgment still stands.
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:43 a.m.
Alright, so if I'm not mistaken, the only pending matter is not the second motion to dismiss.
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:43 a.m.
now*
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 01:44 a.m.
would you like to read that tonight aswell? and relieve your workload
Doogy 2024-10-17 01:45 a.m.
No
Deverus 2024-10-17 12:51 p.m.@impactiii
Deverus 2024-10-17 12:52 p.m.
based upon the recent ruling, are you withdrawing your motion to dismiss, as ello is no longer prosecutor on this case (considering your entire motion is based around ello being the prosecutor of this case) or are you still pushing that.
Deverusbased upon the recent ruling, are you withdrawing your motion to dismiss, as ello is no longer prosecutor on this case (considering your entire motion is based around ello being th...
impactiii 2024-10-17 12:53 p.m.
No because the taint is still there
impactiii 2024-10-17 12:53 p.m.
I feel bad for you guys
impactiii 2024-10-17 12:54 p.m.
You work so hard and he ruined it for all of you
impactiiiNo because the taint is still there
impactiii 2024-10-17 12:54 p.m.
The prejudice doesn’t dissipate simply because he’s no longer the case. See Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, 481 U.S. 787 (1987)
impactiii 2024-10-17 12:54 p.m.
on the case*
Deverus 2024-10-17 12:55 p.m.
right.
Doogy 2024-10-17 12:58 p.m.
Just as a reminder, the review and ruling on the remaining motion to dismiss will occur after the pretrial period has ended so if the state intends to submit a response to it, please do so promptly as the pretrial period closes tomorrow. @Deverus
DoogyJust as a reminder, the review and ruling on the remaining motion to dismiss will occur after the pretrial period has ended so if the state intends to submit a response to it, plea...
Deverus 2024-10-17 12:58 p.m.
thank you your honor, i am tracking.
Deverus 2024-10-17 01:41 p.m.
Deverus 2024-10-17 01:41 p.m.
reeespectfully filed
Deverus 2024-10-17 01:41 p.m.
cc: @Doogy @urinal cake
Deverus 2024-10-17 01:41 p.m.@impactiii ***
Deverus 2024-10-17 01:41 p.m.
been talking about him so much i accidentally pinged the lad
Deverus 2024-10-17 01:42 p.m.
good grief
impactiii 2024-10-17 01:43 p.m.
"The Deputy Attorney General has operated simply as an overseer in this case, as he has with each and every case handled by the Department of Justice."
impactiii 2024-10-17 01:43 p.m.
Bro filed a brief and made an NOA
impactiii 2024-10-17 01:45 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-10-17 01:45 p.m.
he actually spoke more than you did @Deverus
Deverus 2024-10-17 01:53 p.m.
i don’t believe talking shit constitutes prejudice, counselor.
Deverusi don’t believe talking shit constitutes prejudice, counselor.
impactiii 2024-10-17 01:57 p.m.
Burger v. Kemp 483 U.S. 776 (1987) (Holding that prejudice is only presumed if there is proof of an actual conflict of interest)
Seerulings
See
impactiii 2024-10-17 02:03 p.m.
Also a prosecutor with the appearance of personal bias on the case is a structural defect
impactiii 2024-10-17 02:03 p.m.
Says the case you cited, Young
impactiii 2024-10-17 02:07 p.m.
“The presumption of prejudice in conflict-of-interest cases is particularly appropriate because lawyers are charged with the knowledge that they are obliged to avoid such conflict.” Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 800 (1987)
impactiii 2024-10-17 02:07 p.m.
Don't worry, I'll go into it in my reply
impactiii 2024-10-17 02:08 p.m.
If you're concerned
Deverus 2024-10-17 02:08 p.m.
nevertheless, i made my argument and you made yours.
with all due respect, i have better things to do than to argue case law here.
with all due respect, i have better things to do than to argue case law here.
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 03:08 p.m.
I mean.. at this point.. what can you argue.
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-17 04:56 p.m.DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
CC:@Doogy @Deverus
totoro987123 2024-10-17 08:53 p.m.
[Order List for Thursday, October 17, 2024.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u52iExPBK4GXh1KCzm0kWhLaGZ0TADTx/view)(edited)
impactiii 2024-10-17 10:47 p.m.DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
1. DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
3. DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
CC:@Doogy for your convenience
1. DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Link: https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1282914828780048405/1295256623459209298
Link: https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1282914828780048405/1296528536483397653
3. DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Link: https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1282914828780048405/1296577708750274563
CC:
Deverus 2024-10-17 11:35 p.m.
i would like to politely ask for the court's permission to submit a sur-reply with regards to the motion to dismiss.
the defense's continued assertion that there is substantial prejudice to the defendant is unfounded, as is the assertion that there is "residual taint" of the deputy attorney general's conflict of interest on this case.@Doogy
the defense's continued assertion that there is substantial prejudice to the defendant is unfounded, as is the assertion that there is "residual taint" of the deputy attorney general's conflict of interest on this case.
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:37 p.m.
He saw Xolaaz say something and now he wants a surreply
Deverus 2024-10-17 11:37 p.m.
i wasn't aware that xolaaz said anything, for the record.
Deverus 2024-10-17 11:38 p.m.
i have neither the time nor the care to stalk the chats for legal advice.
Deverus 2024-10-17 11:38 p.m.
though, since you called it to my attention, i'll take a look.
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:38 p.m.
Either way the relevant caselaw doesn’t support your position at all
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:39 p.m.
I don’t know what else you could argue
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:39 p.m.
He should’ve never appeared in this case
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:39 p.m.
He ruined it for you
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:39 p.m.
End of story
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:39 p.m.
And here we are
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:39 p.m.
Now the case is about to get dismissed
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:39 p.m.
If you really want to fix things
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:39 p.m.
Go to Lucas and ask him to fire Ello
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:39 p.m.
Maybe he’ll slate you for DAG
Deverus 2024-10-17 11:39 p.m.
talk about animosity.
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:40 p.m.
I’m not the one who brought this case
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:40 p.m.
You did
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:40 p.m.
This is your fault and the state’s fault
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:40 p.m.
Not mine
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:40 p.m.
You came to us
Deverus 2024-10-17 11:40 p.m.
your client did shoot two people dead.
Deverus 2024-10-17 11:40 p.m.
that's a pretty good reason to file charges.
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:42 p.m.
Allegedly
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:42 p.m.
You know you’re not allowed to make that conclusion before we go to trial right
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:42 p.m.
Are you trying to provoke a mistrial
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:42 p.m.
You should know better
Deverus 2024-10-17 11:43 p.m.
for the record, counselor, i've not made any conclusions.
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:43 p.m.
Do you know what the double jeopardy bar against retrial is?
Deverus 2024-10-17 11:43 p.m.
the evidence would strongly indicate, however, that he did.
impactiiiDo you know what the double jeopardy bar against retrial is?
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:43 p.m.
When the government engages in misconduct to attempt to provoke a mistrial because the case was going badly for them
Deverus 2024-10-17 11:43 p.m.
i don't see what you hope to gain by stirring the pot here.
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:43 p.m.
I’m not the one responding
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:43 p.m.
You keep talking to me
impactiii 2024-10-17 11:43 p.m.
You don’t have to
Deverus 2024-10-17 11:44 p.m.
mate, at this rate you're going off the rails.
Deverustalk about animosity.
El Taco Man 2024-10-17 11:47 p.m.
Only animosity that was shown and quashed was your own DAG's which is now for the remainder of this case, gone.
Deverusi would like to politely ask for the court's permission to submit a sur-reply with regards to the motion to dismiss. the defense's continued assertion that there is substantial pr...
Doogy 2024-10-18 08:28 a.m.
You may submit a sur-reply to the motion as long as you can get it in by the close of pretrial. That will be the only permitted sur-reply in the matter.
DoogyPretrial has officially started upon the presence of the defendant post-summons. Pretrial will end 8:00 p.m. or earlier by agreement of both parties. At this time discovery i...
Doogy 2024-10-18 08:29 a.m.
Reminder.
Deverus 2024-10-18 07:58 p.m.
Reeeespectfully filed
Deverus 2024-10-18 07:58 p.m.
cc: @Doogy @impactiii
Deverus 2024-10-18 07:59 p.m.
My apologies for cutting it close
Deverus 2024-10-18 07:59 p.m.
Had work all day
Deverus 2024-10-18 07:59 p.m.
Technically still on the clock
Doogy 2024-10-18 08:53 p.m.@xolaaz added.
Doogy 2024-10-18 08:53 p.m.
Also, pretrial period has ended. I will review and rule on the remaining motion soon.
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:37 p.m.
1v5
DeverusClick to see attachment.
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:44 p.m.
“Any prejudice has already been remedied” 
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:44 p.m.
does the state have a course that they make prosecutors go through where they teach them to purposely misread and misstate case law?
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:44 p.m.
Seems like a common theme
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:45 p.m.
There already is prejudice PRESUMED and ESTABLISHED here
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:46 p.m.
Even if you take the knife out of somebody, they’re still bleeding
xolaaz 2024-10-18 09:46 p.m.@Doogy we ask for sanctions
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:47 p.m.
Haha
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:47 p.m.
Who are you?
xolaaz 2024-10-18 09:47 p.m.
he keeps disrespecting the opposing party
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:47 p.m.
If you wanted respect you shouldn’t have brought this case
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:47 p.m.
This is entirely your fault
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:47 p.m.
Like I said
xolaaz 2024-10-18 09:47 p.m.
directly addressing counselors with remarks that are just not in place for this court
xolaaz 2024-10-18 09:47 p.m.
again, we ask for sanctions be placed
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:48 p.m.
The state is the one who keeps getting sanctioned
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:48 p.m.
That’s very funny
xolaaz 2024-10-18 09:48 p.m.
If need be I can write it on paper your honor
xolaaz 2024-10-18 09:49 p.m.
but I can tell this is a repeat offense in this very same case
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:50 p.m.
Are you threatening to gag the defendant's lawyer
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:51 p.m.@Doogy I'm asking that you admonish this "prosecutor" for trying to silence my posits of fact by frivolously asking for sanctions
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:52 p.m.
Typical gang tactics sending 5 prosecutors against 1 defense attorney when the state's resources could be better put to work elsewhere
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:52 p.m.
If that doesn't spell out why this case should be dismissed, then I don't know what does
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:52 p.m.
When have we ever seen a case with this many prosecutors? Not even Mayflower v MRF did
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:52 p.m.
And it's not because of me
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:52 p.m.
They want the defendant badly
xolaaz 2024-10-18 09:53 p.m.
Perhaps you should be the bigger person and read what you are saying before just blabbering all over in this channel blowing it up completely
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:53 p.m.
Why don't you file one brief
xolaaz 2024-10-18 09:53 p.m.
I'll stand firmly on my ask for sanctions
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:53 p.m.
You've done nothing besides leech onto this case
xolaaz 2024-10-18 09:53 p.m.
Have a good day counselor
DoogyAlso, pretrial period has ended. I will review and rule on the remaining motion soon.
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:54 p.m.
Will this be tonight?
xolaazimpactiii 2024-10-18 09:56 p.m.@Doogy
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:56 p.m.
Positing irrelevant content to mock this court
impactiii 2024-10-18 09:56 p.m.
Posting*
El Taco Man 2024-10-18 10:01 p.m.
This prosecutor.. just recently joined the courts discord and hired as a prosecutor? What gives man
Doogy 2024-10-18 10:02 p.m.
Do not post irrelevant gifs in the proceedings. @xolaaz
El Taco Man 2024-10-18 10:02 p.m.
Now, this is definitely a mockery of the courts.
Doogy 2024-10-18 10:02 p.m.
Sanctions for what and on what grounds?
impactiiiWill this be tonight?
Doogy 2024-10-18 10:02 p.m.
Maybe
El Taco Man 2024-10-18 10:02 p.m.
I can't believe the DOJ has thrown out 5 bloody hound dogs for my little rump
El Taco ManThis prosecutor.. just recently joined the courts discord and hired as a prosecutor? What gives man
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:04 p.m.
I was previously the solicitor general here and was the assistant attorney general
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:04 p.m.
for this very department of justice
DoogySanctions for what and on what grounds?
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:05 p.m.
He keeps disrespecting the state, making foolish remarks and overall using words that shouldn't be in a place of court especially in a criminal proceeding
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:05 p.m. 
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:06 p.m.
this is what the 5th time hes done this since I've been reading this case?
xolaazHe keeps disrespecting the state, making foolish remarks and overall using words that shouldn't be in a place of court especially in a criminal proceeding
El Taco Man 2024-10-18 10:06 p.m.
Right, and you five haven't done the same? I can see some foolish remarks coming from a couple of you no good scoundrels.
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:07 p.m.
Doesn't matter, as long as Im here there wont be any foolish remarks from either side
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:07 p.m.
unless of court the court just allows this to continue
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:07 p.m.
course*
El Taco Man 2024-10-18 10:07 p.m.
Right, how about you tame your beasts of a legal team would you?
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:07 p.m.
Be the bigger person?
El Taco Man 2024-10-18 10:07 p.m.
DoogySanctions for what and on what grounds?
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:08 p.m.
there has been so many times where I've read the blatant disrespectful comments towards the prosecution
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:08 p.m.
especially coming from a high officer of this court
xolaazBe the bigger person?
impactiii 2024-10-18 10:10 p.m.
The DAG should've been the bigger person and recused
impactiii 2024-10-18 10:10 p.m.
But he didn't
impactiii 2024-10-18 10:10 p.m.
And he ruined your case
impactiii 2024-10-18 10:10 p.m.
He ruined these prcoeedings
impactiii 2024-10-18 10:10 p.m.
proceedings*
impactiii 2024-10-18 10:10 p.m.
If you want to blame somebody, blame him
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:10 p.m.
This is nonsense what are you even saying
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:10 p.m.
how do you disrespecting the state and telling the dag to recuse have anything to do with each other
impactiii 2024-10-18 10:11 p.m.
Did you read the ruling or did you really hop onto a case without reading into the details
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:11 p.m.
Im just going to stop talking to you
El Taco Man 2024-10-18 10:11 p.m.
I don't see how anything my counsel has said be regarded as disrespectful in regards to the court. If anything, he possesses quite a keen mouth and only diligently notifies the prosecutors of a legal dilemma within the law...
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:11 p.m.@Doogy Can you control these people
xolaazIm just going to stop talking to you
El Taco Man 2024-10-18 10:11 p.m.
As you should good sir, you seem to have quite the attitude stepping into a case that you have barely been in for around an hour with.
Doogy 2024-10-18 10:12 p.m.
Everyone please refrain from conversation, thanks.
impactiii 2024-10-18 10:12 p.m.
Yes sir
El Taco Man 2024-10-18 10:12 p.m.
Of course, your honor.
DoogyEveryone please refrain from conversation, thanks.
xolaaz 2024-10-18 10:12 p.m.
Next time he makes a disrespectful comment I want sanctions
impactiii 2024-10-18 10:12 p.m.
He said no more conversation
impactiii 2024-10-18 10:12 p.m.
Apologies for the state's further interruption
impactiii 2024-10-18 10:12 p.m.
The defense awaits your ruling, sir
impactiii 2024-10-19 11:10 p.m.@Doogy ruling tonight or tomorrow?
Doogy 2024-10-19 11:11 p.m.
Tomorrow probably
impactiii 2024-10-20 01:39 p.m.DEFENDANT'S NOTICE TO THE COURT
Defendant ISpilledMyTacos, by and through his counsel, hereby asserts his right to a speedy trial pursuant to Mayfl. R. Crim. P. 10.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (BASED ON VIOLATION OF SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS)
Defendant ISpilledMyTacos, by and through his counsel, hereby asserts his right to a speedy trial pursuant to Mayfl. R. Crim. P. 10.
CC:@Doogy
xolaaz 2024-10-20 03:59 p.m.
oh my god
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:01 p.m.
not once was a 6A speedy trial mentioned once so why would the state have to adress something the defendant never brought up..
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:02 p.m.
also the court adjourned for 8 days, https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1282914828780048405/1287262199328280587
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:02 p.m. 
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:02 p.m.
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:03 p.m.
pre trial ended two days ago
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:04 p.m.
my brain is fried from reading this poor motion
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:05 p.m.
just put the response in the bag bro
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:05 p.m.
Keep delaying your own proceeding with motions and having the judge rule
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:05 p.m.
cant claim speedy trial 
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:06 p.m.
bro basically just said because i filed motions i delayed the case
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:06 p.m.
i dont keep the deadlines
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:06 p.m.
the court does
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:06 p.m.
you are delaying the case
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:07 p.m.
were still waiting on this ruling for the DQ mtd
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:07 p.m.
now once i file this response he'll have to rule for this MTD
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:07 p.m.
i mean keep delaying trial doesnt affect me
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:07 p.m.
doesnt affect you?
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:07 p.m.
so are you here for the state or for you
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:08 p.m.
delaying trial doesn't affect the state, we have all the time in the world
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:08 p.m.
just a heads up u cant claim speedy trial for you delaying your own trial
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:08 p.m.
you will have to argue that
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:08 p.m.
which will be easy
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:09 p.m.
but none the less we will sit here and wait for the two rulings that now have to come
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:09 p.m.
then we get to schedule trial unless another motion appears
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:11 p.m.
if your only argument is "he filed motions within the pretrial period" i mean good lord
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:11 p.m.
the period was from october 10 to october 18
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:11 p.m.
its your duty to provide a speedy trial, not mine
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:11 p.m.
you have the burden here
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:11 p.m.
we cant schedule trial if hes ruling on your motions
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:11 p.m.
also right so if it was in pre trial how was the right to a speedy trial violated
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:12 p.m.
do you understand how that works
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:12 p.m.
that was pre trial
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:12 p.m.
that is the standard date/length for pre trial period
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:12 p.m.
it accounts for (1) the beginning of the case to (2) when he is tried
he needs to be actually tried in a certain period of time
he needs to be actually tried in a certain period of time
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:12 p.m.
so when the case is filed to when he is tried
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:13 p.m.
speedy trial is a 6th month period
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:13 p.m.
says no law
impactiii 2024-10-20 04:13 p.m.
shah_khaled is gonna make a ruling on this too
xolaaz 2024-10-20 04:13 p.m.
which will be appealed >
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-20 05:35 p.m.
(a) Time Standards. The following time standards are hereby established as a presumptively reasonable time period for the completion of cases in the trial and appellate courts of this state. It is recognized that there are cases that, because of their complexity, present problems that cause reasonable delays. However, most cases should be completed within the following time periods:
(1) Trial Court Time Standards.
(A) Criminal.
Felony - 35 days
Misdemeanor - 20 days
Mayfl. Jud. Admin. R. 5(a)(1)(A)
We are 40 days in!
(1) Trial Court Time Standards.
(A) Criminal.
Misdemeanor - 20 days
Mayfl. Jud. Admin. R. 5(a)(1)(A)
We are 40 days in!
xolaaz 2024-10-20 05:55 p.m.
pretty sure the defendant was serviced on the 3rd of this month
impactiii 2024-10-20 05:55 p.m.
its generaly accepted that the speedy trial clock runs from when the information is filed in the case
xolaaz 2024-10-20 05:56 p.m.
you have to establish PC in order for a service
xolaaz 2024-10-20 05:59 p.m.
becuase what happens when a case is filed with the info but sits in pending assignment?
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:00 p.m.
u wait till the judge establishes PC in the case
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:00 p.m.
not as soon as the CI and AOPC are filed
xolaazyou have to establish PC in order for a service
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:01 p.m.
i did not contest that
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:01 p.m.
but there is still a timeline
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:01 p.m.
and the timeline began as soon as he was serviced
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:01 p.m.
which was on the 3rd of october making it way before the deadline
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:02 p.m.
why would it begin as soon as he was serviced
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:02 p.m.
he was charged beforehand
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:02 p.m.
he was under charges when the case was filed
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:02 p.m.
this is a formal charging in court
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:03 p.m.
i dont know what you mean by that
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:03 p.m.
how could he have been under charges when the case was filed
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:03 p.m.
because the information informs him of the charges against him
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:03 p.m.
and its filed at the start of the case
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:03 p.m.
which begins the case
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:03 p.m.
yes when the probable cause is established
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:03 p.m.
thus he was under charges the entire time
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:03 p.m.
thats not how that works
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:04 p.m.
the timer does not begin until hes been serviced which is a result of pc being established
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:04 p.m.
this is how its always been
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:04 p.m.
you have a crim case filed sitting in pending assignment it waits until pc is established
xolaazthe timer does not begin until hes been serviced which is a result of pc being established
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:04 p.m.
cite it
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:05 p.m.
because thats just not true
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:05 p.m.
how long have you been involved in mayflower law
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:05 p.m.
previous mayflower law doesnt matter
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:05 p.m.
this is mayflower
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:06 p.m.
you cant pull law from new haven because clark exists under a whole entire different country
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:06 p.m.
two parallel universes
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:06 p.m.
unless you wanna talk about metaphysics
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:06 p.m.
WHAT
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:06 p.m.
do you want to?
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:06 p.m.
THIS IS CLARK COUNTY UNDER MAYFLOWER
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:06 p.m.
yes mayflower under the union of columbia
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:06 p.m.
under unionware
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:06 p.m.
and mayflower under the united states of america
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:06 p.m.
which is new haven
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:06 p.m.
this is not new haven
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:07 p.m.
yet we use all of the same laws, judicial canons and procedures
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:07 p.m.
which apply here
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:07 p.m.
you might as well cite ridgeway law at that point
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:07 p.m.
Dude are you genuinely like slow
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:07 p.m.
very tenuous argument
xolaazDude are you genuinely like slow
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:07 p.m.@Doogy
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:08 p.m.
Cry to daddy
impactiii 2024-10-20 06:08 p.m.
let me go cite law from earth 21 in the marvel verse
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:09 p.m.
done talking to you
xolaaz 2024-10-20 06:09 p.m.
idk how u have a bar cert
Deverus 2024-10-20 06:11 p.m.
good grief.
xolaazyet we use all of the same laws, judicial canons and procedures
El Taco Man 2024-10-20 08:39 p.m.
No. You're wrong.
El Taco Man 2024-10-20 08:40 p.m.
This is Union Of Columbia, don't know what a new haven is. Don't just assume everything is the same when it's not.
El Taco Man 2024-10-20 08:42 p.m.@Doogy just wondering, you doing the ruling tn?
Doogy 2024-10-20 08:53 p.m.
New Haven exists in our Mayflower btw
Doogy 2024-10-20 08:53 p.m.
and yes
DoogyNew Haven exists in our Mayflower btw
impactiii 2024-10-20 08:56 p.m.
new haven county might exist but this is unionware mayflower
impactiii 2024-10-20 08:56 p.m.
set in the union of columbia
impactiii 2024-10-20 08:56 p.m.
in 2001
impactiii 2024-10-20 08:56 p.m.
new haven is set in the USA
impactiii 2024-10-20 08:56 p.m.
in present day
impactiii 2024-10-20 08:56 p.m.
anyways
impactiii 2024-10-20 08:56 p.m.
thats not really important just stupid sidetrack argument
Doogy 2024-10-20 08:56 p.m.
yea
Doogy 2024-10-20 10:11 p.m.
Ruling posted on the second motion to dismiss. rulings
Doogy 2024-10-20 10:11 p.m.@impactiii @Brit @Deverus @singhski @xolaaz
Doogy 2024-10-20 10:11 p.m.
is that everyone im losing track lol
Brit 2024-10-20 10:14 p.m.
Should be
impactiiiDoogy 2024-10-20 10:16 p.m.
This motion to dismiss is also denied sua sponte . The case was added to my docket and then entered formal adjournment for a week, which is time excusable by the Court. In addition, the Defendant was served only on the 3rd of October with the counsel and Defendant joining proceedings on the 7th, nearing the end of the 5 day period required after summons. In addition, as noted by the state, the pretrial period ended only two days ago, and had not been ended earlier by any plea of either party, despite it being clearly stated that either party may petition to do so.
With all this in mind, the Court finds that there has been no impediment on a speedy trial to a degree warranting dismissal.
With all this in mind, the Court finds that there has been no impediment on a speedy trial to a degree warranting dismissal.
Brit 2024-10-20 10:17 p.m.
The State would concur for the record
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:18 p.m.@Doogy I'd like you to revisit this but actually use real precedent this time https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1279836211703447614/1295474029146411201
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:18 p.m.
If possible
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:18 p.m.
Verbal motion to for reconsideration
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:18 p.m.
motion for*
Doogy 2024-10-20 10:20 p.m.
Denied, no motion will be reconsidered, especially with the ostensible concern from the Defense regarding speedy trial.
Doogy 2024-10-20 10:21 p.m.
Now, with there finally being no pending motions to the Court, we may begin to schedule for trial. Please be aware that it is intended for the trial to commence in game for a more fluid presentation of arguments and to ensure the trial is completed in a timely manner and, likely, within one instance rather than across a longer period of time.
With that being said, my availability is present inchamber-information . The trial would require the presence of the Defendant and at least one attorney from the DoJ to represent the State. It is also likely in the best intentions of the Defendant to have their counsel present as well.
cc:@impactiii @El Taco Man @Deverus @xolaaz @Brit @singhski
With that being said, my availability is present in
cc:
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:21 p.m.
Ostensible?
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:21 p.m.
Was that a spite?
DoogyNow, with there finally being no pending motions to the Court, we may begin to schedule for trial. Please be aware that it is intended for the trial to commence in game for a more ...
Doogy 2024-10-20 10:25 p.m.
If all mentioned parties may please provide to the Court a date/time within the available times mentioned in my chambers information so we may begin to work out a trial date.
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:27 p.m.
if the trial is going to be in game i dont see how thats a feasible way to make any kind of substantive arguments
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:28 p.m.
literally just gonna be "The Defendant ######## and ####### did ###### ####### ################."
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:28 p.m.
"Tags"
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:28 p.m.
"Omg"
Doogy 2024-10-20 10:29 p.m.
Although that can occur and be annoying, most text isn't censored by ROBLOX's terrible filter during proceedings. Any text that is censored would be directed to be stated into this case channel when it occurs rather than numerous attempts of sending in game.
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:38 p.m.@Doogy also the state never gave us the transcript of the MBI or DOJ whatever discord channel they used when investigating this case
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:38 p.m.
i know they have one because MBI does tickets for AOPCs
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:38 p.m.
thats considered brady evidence because it covers police notes and findings about the investigation
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:39 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:39 p.m.
and it covers discord messages
Doogy 2024-10-20 10:42 p.m.
You had reviewed the state's affidavit certifying the Brady disclosures when they sent it and made no mention of lack of disclosure at the time. As pretrial has ended, and the Court has allocated more than enough time to preliminary matters, the focus has shifted to scheduling for trial.
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:42 p.m.
judge
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:42 p.m.
its not my job to make sure they disclose anything
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:42 p.m.
my only job is to catch them
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:42 p.m.
they are the only ones who have to make sure they disclose everything to me
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:42 p.m.
this isn't debatable
Doogy 2024-10-20 10:48 p.m.
They sent an affidavit certifying they disclosed everything asked, you review the affidavit and made no mention in opposition that they may have left anything out. How else would you determine they disclosed everything if they are stating they did and you had made no opposing statement arguing they hadn't?
Doogy 2024-10-20 10:48 p.m.
reviewed*
DoogyThey sent an affidavit certifying they disclosed everything asked, you review the affidavit and made no mention in opposition that they may have left anything out. How else would y...
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:58 p.m.
"The individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police." Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995).
The "duty to disclose [exculpatory material] is ongoing," meaning it can happen at any stage of the case—includingright now or even in the middle of trial. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39, 60 (1987).
It is not the responsibility of the defense to request the disclosure of such material.See United States v. Agurs , 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (stating that Brady is not "confined to cases where there has been a request by the defense”).
They didn't disclose it despite knowing they had to. That's bottom line here. It honestly just popped into my mind (I'm willing to swear to this as well). There is no such thing as an untimelyBrady request. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39 (1987). These issue are often contested well into pre and post-trial as grounds for appeal, for mistrial, or for dismissal.
I also think you should be asking them the questions instead of me. They have an affirmative duty underBrady to disclose that material, not me. Like I said, all I have to do is bring it up. And it's actually really bad that I had to bring it up because... yeah... their duty to disclose is absolute under decades of precedent set since the inception of Brady and its progeny.
The "duty to disclose [exculpatory material] is ongoing," meaning it can happen at any stage of the case—including
It is not the responsibility of the defense to request the disclosure of such material.
They didn't disclose it despite knowing they had to. That's bottom line here. It honestly just popped into my mind (I'm willing to swear to this as well). There is no such thing as an untimely
I also think you should be asking them the questions instead of me. They have an affirmative duty under
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:59 p.m.
I could actually move to dismiss based off of this but...
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:59 p.m.
If they can just give it to me
Deverus 2024-10-20 10:59 p.m.
for the record, there was no ticket used to obtain this AOPC. the request for a signature on said affidavit was made directly in DMs with the affiant. the conversation had no investigative substance to it and went roughly like so
"hi special agent monterruh, i need a signature on this affidavit. can you take a look and sign it for me?"
"sure!"
the only other channel that exists is the PIO's channel where we coordinated the development of documents and initiating of proceedings. not investigation.
"hi special agent monterruh, i need a signature on this affidavit. can you take a look and sign it for me?"
"sure!"
the only other channel that exists is the PIO's channel where we coordinated the development of documents and initiating of proceedings. not investigation.
impactiiiI could actually move to dismiss based off of this but...
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:59 p.m.
Or another sanction like a motion to compel
Deverusfor the record, there was no ticket used to obtain this AOPC. the request for a signature on said affidavit was made directly in DMs with the affiant. the conversation had no inves...
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:59 p.m.
Then please disclose it
impactiii 2024-10-20 10:59 p.m.
And I'll b done
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:00 p.m.
I'd also like to state that the motion to compel related to the Brady disclosures has already been denied as moot, with the agreeance of the defense counsel, after the certifying affidavit had been reviewed.
Deverus 2024-10-20 11:00 p.m. 
Deverus 2024-10-20 11:00 p.m.
there ya go boss
DoogyI'd also like to state that the motion to compel related to the Brady disclosures has already been denied as moot, with the agreeance of the defense counsel, after the certifying a...
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:01 p.m.
doesnt matter
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:01 p.m.
motion or not
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:01 p.m.
the only thing the motion to compel would do is like automatic contempt
impactiiiOr another sanction like a motion to compel
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:01 p.m.
You just said this, I was simply responding to it.
DeverusClick to see attachment.
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:02 p.m.
Does this satisfy the disclosures now?
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:02 p.m.
yes and knowing this i'd like leave of the court to add pendingfriendss as a defense witness
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:03 p.m.
what's his username
Deverus 2024-10-20 11:03 p.m.
PendingMonterruh
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:03 p.m.
Sure, he is added to the record as a defense witness.
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:03 p.m.
Can we refocus on scheduling of trial now if all parties are satisfied?
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:03 p.m.
and his AOPC as well
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:03 p.m.
as an exhibit
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:04 p.m.
His AOPC meaning the image just sent by the state?
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:04 p.m.
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:04 p.m.
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:04 p.m.
this aopc
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:04 p.m.
His AOPC is already on the record
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:04 p.m.
has been since the time of filing
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:04 p.m.
i have to mark it as an exhibit still but
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:04 p.m.
alright
DoogySure, he is added to the record as a defense witness.
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:08 p.m.
do you want a list or ill just refer back to this
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:08 p.m.
and the AOPC will be defense exhibit A
DoogyNow, with there finally being no pending motions to the Court, we may begin to schedule for trial. Please be aware that it is intended for the trial to commence in game for a more ...
Deverus 2024-10-20 11:10 p.m.
i wrote that whole response for nothing
Deverus 2024-10-20 11:11 p.m.
shame.
impactiiido you want a list or ill just refer back to this
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:13 p.m.
You can just refer back to this.
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:13 p.m.
friday after 6pm
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:14 p.m.
Assuming that time works for the Defendant as well?
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:15 p.m.
i hope and if not he can just waive appearance seeing as this isn't a capital case
Deverus 2024-10-20 11:18 p.m.
friday after 9
Deverus 2024-10-20 11:18 p.m.
i work 10am to 8pm that day.
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:27 p.m.
after 9 work for you? @impactiii
impactiii 2024-10-20 11:27 p.m.
yeah sure
Doogy 2024-10-20 11:29 p.m.
Okay, we'll set the trial to 9:15 p.m. at the Capitol Hill courthouse in Lander. @impactiii @Deverus @Brit @xolaaz @singhski
xolaaz 2024-10-20 11:39 p.m.
Great should work for me
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:52 a.m.MR. ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR DISCOVERY BASED ON SELECTIVE AND VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION
CC:@Doogy @Deverus @xolaaz @Brit @singhski
Doogy 2024-10-23 07:05 a.m.
you already used #007 btw
impactiiiDoogy 2024-10-23 07:24 a.m.
Also this motion is denied sua sponte in accordance with the Rules of the District Court Rule 3(10). It is atypical to allow submission of a pretrial motion after the end of pretrial unless it introduces new legal grounds based on evidence or exceptional circumstances to justify the filing. At this point in the proceedings, after the end of pretrial and with the first trial date scheduled, the Court expects all substantive motions to have already been resolved during the pretrial period.
DoogyAlso this motion is denied sua sponte in accordance with the Rules of the District Court Rule 3(10). It is atypical to allow submission of a pretrial motion after the end of pret...
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:47 a.m.
That doesn’t really make any sense
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:48 a.m.
Dispositive motions can be made at any
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:48 a.m.
time
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:48 a.m.
Like if the government at trial engaged in some kind of gross misconduct then there would need to be a dispositive motion filed
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:56 a.m.
If the rules outright foreclose on the filing of all motions after “pretrial” then that’s actually very bad and I think that needs to be reconsidered
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:56 a.m.
This court has the power to depart from the rules and it should do so here
impactiiiLike if the government at trial engaged in some kind of gross misconduct then there would need to be a dispositive motion filed
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:57 a.m.
This would make unavailable crucial remedies such as this:
“Like if the government at trial engaged in some kind of gross misconduct then there would need to be a dispositive motion filed”
“Like if the government at trial engaged in some kind of gross misconduct then there would need to be a dispositive motion filed”
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:58 a.m.
Some of the evidence in this motion wasn’t discovered until after pretrial ended
Doogy 2024-10-23 10:01 a.m.
There are exceptions, which I mentioned, such as if it introduces new legal grounds based on evidence or exceptional circumstances. This motion doesn’t introduce new evidence and wouldn’t be considered an exceptional circumstance.
DoogyThere are exceptions, which I mentioned, such as if it introduces new legal grounds based on evidence or exceptional circumstances. This motion doesn’t introduce new evidence and w...
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:01 a.m.
“new legal grounds”
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:02 a.m.
That’s what this does
Doogy 2024-10-23 10:12 a.m.
It doesn’t appear to introduce any new legal grounds based on evidence . In fact, even the legal grounds it brings up are addressed already in previous motions and rulings.
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:12 a.m.
That doesn’t make any sense
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:13 a.m.
Selective and vindictive prosecution is a whole other beast
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:13 a.m.
And it’s certainly “based on evidence” here
Doogy 2024-10-23 10:18 a.m.
The motion is not introducing any new legal grounds based on the evidence, it’s revisiting already addressed and established grounds regarding the disqualified attorney. In addition to that, it’s highly speculative rather than based on any substantive evidence formulating the new legal grounds. We’ve far surpassed the time where this might have been entertained for the sake of allowing the defense to exercise any and all methods of defense, but as it is post-pretrial, it won’t be entertained unless it meets the aforementioned criteria of exceptions.
DoogyThe motion is not introducing any new legal grounds based on the evidence, it’s revisiting already addressed and established grounds regarding the disqualified attorney. In additio...
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:36 a.m.
So I don’t understand something then
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:36 a.m.
You intend for this case to sit in limbo for 3 days
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:36 a.m.
Because this isn’t “pretrial”
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:37 a.m.
Yet everything before trial is “pretrial”
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:37 a.m.
Now if this was an evidentiary motion
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:37 a.m.
I’d totally understand
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:37 a.m.
But all factual and legal questions need to be resolved before trial
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:37 a.m.
The issue of selective and vindictive prosecution hasn’t been addressed yet
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:37 a.m.
And it’s still before trial
Doogy 2024-10-23 10:40 a.m.
Pretrial is a specified period of time that, in Mayflower, lasts for a timeframe of 10 days. You had every opportunity during pretrial to request for it to be extended, just like you had every opportunity during pretrial to request for it to end early. Just because it’s prior to the date that the parties must present themselves to the court doesn’t mean it’s still in pretrial. At this stage, we are considered “in trial”. We’re not sitting in limbo for 3 days for no reason, we’re simply awaiting the time to meet in the courthouse as agreed upon by all parties.
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:41 a.m.
You can depart from the rules if it prejudices a defendant
Doogy 2024-10-23 10:42 a.m.
In addition, as I mentioned earlier, it is expected that all substantive motions are to be resolved during the pretrial period. It is the prerogative of the respective parties to bring these issues to the attention of the court during the pretrial period, not just at any time during the proceedings.
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:42 a.m.
Here the defendant is prejudiced in that he can’t even resolve a significant factual and legal question before trial
impactiiiYou can depart from the rules if it prejudices a defendant
Doogy 2024-10-23 10:43 a.m.
I don’t find it to be prejudicing anyone. Every party had ample time to present whatever preliminary matters they wanted to address during pretrial. We have since passed that time and the focus is now on conducting the trial.
impactiiiHere the defendant is prejudiced in that he can’t even resolve a significant factual and legal question before trial
Doogy 2024-10-23 10:44 a.m.
The defendant could have, during pretrial. Neglecting to do so or to not request extension of the pretrial period is not the courts fault and does not mean anyone is prejudiced.
DoogyThe defendant could have, during pretrial. Neglecting to do so or to not request extension of the pretrial period is not the courts fault and does not mean anyone is prejudiced.
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:47 a.m.
Can you cite one legal precedent that supports sua sponte denial of a dispositive motion in the pretrial stage
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:48 a.m.
The rules don’t supersede due process
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:49 a.m.
And in some cases, the rules deny due process, like, for example, with the rule that permits a prosecutor to amend an indictment on his own initiative
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:50 a.m.
Take everything you see in that rulebook into consideration, but don’t let it be absolute
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:50 a.m.
Question everything as a judge
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:51 a.m.
You are the fact finder
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:51 a.m.
Here is where you need to question the rules
impactiiiAnd in some cases, the rules deny due process, like, for example, with the rule that permits a prosecutor to amend an indictment on his own initiative
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:51 a.m.
And I mean indictments specifically
impactiii 2024-10-23 10:51 a.m.
Not information
impactiiiCan you cite one legal precedent that supports sua sponte denial of a dispositive motion in the pretrial stage
Doogy 2024-10-23 11:49 a.m.
We’re not in the pretrial stage.
DoogyWe’re not in the pretrial stage.
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:09 p.m.
This is literally pretrial
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:10 p.m.
By common law, this is pretrial
impactiiiAnd in some cases, the rules deny due process, like, for example, with the rule that permits a prosecutor to amend an indictment on his own initiative
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:11 p.m.
The rules are extraordinarily questionable and should be taken at face value, especially here
DoogyIt doesn’t appear to introduce any new legal grounds based on evidence . In fact, even the legal grounds it brings up are addressed already in previous motions and rulings.
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:12 p.m.
You already said you were willing to do that
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:12 p.m.
And I’ve explained how different this standard is from anything else
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:13 p.m.
Common law and constitutional guarantees (the right to present a defense, e.g., by a motion to dismiss) supersede rules of procedure
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:14 p.m.
I draw attention to the inherent flaws in these rules by clarifying the fact that there are already constitutionally proscribed practices that are endorsed by them
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:14 p.m.
The same happens here with this “pretrial rule”
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:15 p.m.
It would not be an abuse of discretion to permit this motion to be considered
Doogy 2024-10-23 12:26 p.m.
It would not be, but it doesn’t meet the criteria for an exception as I’ve reiterated numerous times. For motions to be submitted after pretrial it needs to meet the criteria.
DoogyPretrial is a specified period of time that, in Mayflower, lasts for a timeframe of 10 days. You had every opportunity during pretrial to request for it to be extended, just like y...
Doogy 2024-10-23 12:27 p.m.
As I mentioned here, we are not in the pretrial period anymore.
Doogy 2024-10-23 12:28 p.m.
And in that same message I also mentioned how you have had ample time and opportunity to present your defense through whatever preliminarily methods that were at your disposal.
DoogyAnd in that same message I also mentioned how you have had ample time and opportunity to present your defense through whatever preliminarily methods that were at your disposal.
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:28 p.m.
I wasn’t able to raise the ruling on the motion to disqualify in the subsequent “pretrial” motions
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:28 p.m.
Seeing as pretrial closed hours later
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:29 p.m.
Your definition of it
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:29 p.m.
Ruling was made on October 17 and pretrial closed on October 18
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:29 p.m.
And the last motion to dismiss was denied on the 20th-21st
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:30 p.m.
Could not have anticipated the it would be our last chance to contest the deficiencies in this case
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:30 p.m.
That it*
Doogy 2024-10-23 12:30 p.m.
Pretrial could have been extended if it were your intention to submit a motion based on the outcome of the disqualification ruling.
Doogy 2024-10-23 12:30 p.m.
These opportunities were present, you just hadn’t taken them.
DoogyThese opportunities were present, you just hadn’t taken them.
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:32 p.m.
No one informed us that we would be barred from any and all motions after an arbitrary date had come and go
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:34 p.m.
Completely beyond the norm
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:34 p.m.
And you haven’t cited a single legal precedent like I said
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:34 p.m.
This is far against the grain
Doogy 2024-10-23 12:35 p.m.
It wasn’t arbitrary, it was declared at the beginning of the proceedings when all parties were present. It’s also not something you had to be admonished of as it’s common court knowledge for any practicing attorney who has sufficiently reviewed the rules of the court.
Doogy 2024-10-23 12:35 p.m.
Any negligence on your part is not the responsibility of the court to accommodate it.
DoogyIt wasn’t arbitrary, it was declared at the beginning of the proceedings when all parties were present. It’s also not something you had to be admonished of as it’s common court kno...
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:40 p.m.
It’s not common knowledge that the rules of procedure deny procedural due process
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:40 p.m.
Well, actually this
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:40 p.m.
It is common knowledge
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:41 p.m.
I take it back
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:41 p.m.
Also this motion literally fits your criteria
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:42 p.m.
I can address each prong in a paragraph if I must
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:48 p.m.
And this is precisely why I turn to common law and the constitution
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:50 p.m.
The rules of procedure are absolutely terrible… not to go off track too much… but the rules of criminal procedure don’t even include defenses and objections (like rule 12 FRCRP does). It makes you wonder why these rules were so barebones in the first place
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:50 p.m.
Whereas FRCP is relatively fleshed out and detailed
impactiii 2024-10-23 12:52 p.m.
My motion needs to be heard or this is coming up on appeal
impactiiiWhereas FRCP is relatively fleshed out and detailed
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:00 p.m.
MRCP I mean
impactiii"The individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police." *Kyles v. Whi...
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:02 p.m.
Based on this if possible I’d like to ask the State to disclose a few things if you’ll allow it @Doogy
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:02 p.m.
These are things they should’ve given to me but they didn’t so
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:04 p.m.
If you would allow me to give a list
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:04 p.m.
I won’t ask for an extension I just need them
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:04 p.m.
And they have to give it to me anyway
impactiiiIf you would allow me to give a list
Doogy 2024-10-23 01:11 p.m.
Similarly to the other thing they disclosed late, if there’s anything that was intended to be disclosed in the Brady disclosures that they attested they provided everything for then they are required to provide it upon their own admission, even at this point in the proceedings.
DoogySimilarly to the other thing they disclosed late, if there’s anything that was intended to be disclosed in the Brady disclosures that they attested they provided everything for the...
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:25 p.m.
That’s not true
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:25 p.m.
If I point it out
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:25 p.m.
They have to give it to me
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:25 p.m.
And we can do a hearing to determine whether or not it’s exculpatory and material
impactiiiThey have to give it to me
Doogy 2024-10-23 01:31 p.m.
Is it not the same material requested in one of the two motions you provided for disclosures?
Doogy 2024-10-23 01:31 p.m.
or of the same material rather
Doogy 2024-10-23 01:32 p.m.
By “providing it upon their own admission” I’m referring to the fact that they attested to providing everything, so if it turns out they haven’t, they are obligated to provide it without need of court order or motion because they attested to providing everything already. They’d be required to by their own admission.
DoogyBy “providing it upon their own admission” I’m referring to the fact that they attested to providing everything, so if it turns out they haven’t, they are obligated to provide it w...
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:49 p.m.
Oh alright
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:49 p.m.
I misunderstood
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:57 p.m.
I would like:
1. a copy of the tip that was submitted by aspenfun to the DOJ tipline in relation to the offense
2. all DMs (or proof of lack thereof) between all of the prosecutors on this case (past and present) and the victim, aspenfun
@Doogy
1. a copy of the tip that was submitted by aspenfun to the DOJ tipline in relation to the offense
2. all DMs (or proof of lack thereof) between all of the prosecutors on this case (past and present) and the victim, aspenfun
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:57 p.m.
And informant statute of aspenfun
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:57 p.m.
If applicable
impactiiiAnd informant statute of aspenfun
impactiii 2024-10-23 01:58 p.m.
That can be given to me in camera with your review if it’s applicable here
impactiiiAnd informant statute of aspenfun
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:08 p.m.
status*
impactiiiI would like: 1. a copy of the tip that was submitted by aspenfun to the DOJ tipline in relation to the offense 2. all DMs (or proof of lack thereof) between all of the prosecutors...
Doogy 2024-10-23 02:41 p.m.
This was all requested originally in one of the two motions you had submitted? Also the DMs would only be applicable for conversation related to the matter, not all unrelated DMs.
DoogyThis was all requested originally in one of the two motions you had submitted? Also the DMs would only be applicable for conversation related to the matter, not all unrelated DMs.
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:41 p.m.
they never gave them to me and yeah
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:42 p.m.
if theres no DMs at all then i need proof of i
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:42 p.m.
it*
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:42 p.m.
but if there is dms but theyre personal then they need to acknowledge that
Doogy 2024-10-23 02:42 p.m.@Brit @singhski @Deverus @xolaaz
impactiiiif theres no DMs at all then i need proof of i
Doogy 2024-10-23 02:42 p.m.
Yeah I mean it’d have to more or less be a sworn affidavit attesting that there isn’t any relevant to the case cause there’s no real way to prove the lack thereof otherwise.
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:43 p.m.
just a photo of the DM with an empty message bar if there is no DMs
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:43 p.m.
and if there is DMs
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:43 p.m.
then they do an affidavit
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:43 p.m.
like you said
Doogy 2024-10-23 02:44 p.m.
I’m sure most of them have DMs with each other but if there’s none relevant to the case then the affidavit would suffice to declare.
Doogy 2024-10-23 02:44 p.m.
to declare that*
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:45 p.m.
right and the ones with aspenfun too
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:45 p.m.
those especially
Doogy 2024-10-23 02:45 p.m.
Sorry, there’s been a lot going on with this case, remind me who aspenfun is in regards to this matter?
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:46 p.m.
he is the original person who made the tip and he's the victim
Doogy 2024-10-23 02:46 p.m.
Gotcha. Okay.
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:47 p.m.
there was some concerns from our side that there was some involvement between DAG Ello and aspenfun because he's on his friend list
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:47 p.m.
and if DAG Ello contacted aspenfun then that needs to be disclosed
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:47 p.m.
in re this case
impactiiiand if DAG Ello contacted aspenfun then that needs to be disclosed
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:48 p.m.
or vice versa
DoogyYeah I mean it’d have to more or less be a sworn affidavit attesting that there isn’t any relevant to the case cause there’s no real way to prove the lack thereof otherwise.
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:52 p.m.
we can also do an in camera review
impactiii 2024-10-23 02:52 p.m.
but anything personal and not roblox can be redacted
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:25 p.m.ISPILLEDMYTACOS' MOTION TO ENJOIN HIS PROSECUTION
CC:@Doogy
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:37 p.m.
I thought we moved past ello getting dq'd, I guess not
Doogyimpactiii 2024-10-23 04:38 p.m.@xolaaz
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:38 p.m.
Respond to him
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:39 p.m.
Im not primary counsel
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:40 p.m.
It doesn’t matter
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:40 p.m.
aalso you quite literally just reworded a claim that was in ur MTD that got denied into this new motion
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:40 p.m.
Like I dont get it bro
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:40 p.m.
ur mtd got denied but you put the same claims into another motion
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:41 p.m.
Are you going to respond to him
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:41 p.m.
Worry about yourself and your party
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:41 p.m.@Doogy Do I need to file a second motion to compel?
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:41 p.m.
(I think he'd deny that one sua sponte too)
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:42 p.m.
So are you openly refusing to provide what the judge asked for
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:42 p.m.
And what you are compelled to disclose
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:42 p.m.
Bro what are you saying
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:42 p.m.
Never once did I openly deny the request
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:42 p.m.
like I said worry about yourself because all ur motions keep getting tossed so
Doogyxolaaz 2024-10-23 04:43 p.m.
I was not present during the original discovery, was an addition later. Deverus can answer the question and can submit anything that needs to be submitted
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:43 p.m.
It doesn’t matter
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:43 p.m.
You are counsel of record
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:43 p.m.
Too bad
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:44 p.m.
ill let the judge rule on it
impactiiiI would like: 1. a copy of the tip that was submitted by aspenfun to the DOJ tipline in relation to the offense 2. all DMs (or proof of lack thereof) between all of the prosecutors...
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:46 p.m.
.
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:48 p.m.
This is honestly the third time I’ve had to ask the state to disclose something and they gave me a hard time for it
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:48 p.m.
Honestly my life is really hard, I dont know why
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:49 p.m.
everywhere I look there isnt sunshine and rainbows
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:49 p.m.
I was more leaning in the direction of corrective measures such as compelled disclosure (even though Brady already mandates this) but alright
Doogy 2024-10-23 04:50 p.m.@Deverus is the one who certified the affidavit expressing that "The State has turned over all evidence in its possession in its discovery, and has not, by any means, withheld any evidence." Therefore, it'd be his responsibility to ensure those words are truthful by ensuring all the content requested in the Brady disclosures have been provided.
Doogy 2024-10-23 04:50 p.m.
has*
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:50 p.m.
Wow you couldnt of explained it better
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:51 p.m.
What a hostile guy
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:51 p.m.
I hope you have a better day man
Doogy 2024-10-23 04:51 p.m.
Please keep conversation relevant.
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:51 p.m.
Thanks, It's been a struggle recently
DoogyPlease keep conversation relevant.
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:51 p.m.
So circling back
impactiiiI would like: 1. a copy of the tip that was submitted by aspenfun to the DOJ tipline in relation to the offense 2. all DMs (or proof of lack thereof) between all of the prosecutors...
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:51 p.m.
.
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:51 p.m.
This is what they need to give me
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:52 p.m.
I think the judge saw that and just told him
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:52 p.m.
As you agreed
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:52 p.m.
also your honor @Doogy , his newest motion quite literally restates the claims that are in the 2nd MTD that got denied
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:53 p.m.
He didn’t read it yet
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:53 p.m.
Don’t lie to him
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:53 p.m.
Well I just gave him a summary of your motion
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:53 p.m.
I seek nothing but the truth
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:54 p.m.
Selective and vindictive prosecution = constitutionally-grounded injunction
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:54 p.m.
Makes sense
impactiii 2024-10-23 04:54 p.m.
Same argument 100%
xolaaz 2024-10-23 04:55 p.m.
Selective and vindictive prosecution nice
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-23 05:03 p.m.
In addition to the Brady disclosures, timeline respond on this? This is a tenable constitutional attack on the structure of this case and this issue will be brought up on appeal if not addressed here
impactiii 2024-10-23 05:03 p.m.@Doogy
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:18 p.m.
Ruling posted on the motion to enjoin. rulings
DoogyOkay, we'll set the trial to 9:15 p.m. at the Capitol Hill courthouse in Lander. @impactiii @Deverus @Brit @xolaaz <@9544...
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:19 p.m.
Reminder. @impactiii @Deverus @Brit @xolaaz @singhski
Brit 2024-10-23 08:19 p.m.
I don't be there as that's 2 am for me
Brit 2024-10-23 08:19 p.m.
I believe Dev has agreed to appear on behalf of the State
BritI don't be there as that's 2 am for me
Brit 2024-10-23 08:20 p.m.
won't*
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:20 p.m.
Okay, thanks for letting me know.
DoogyReminder. @impactiii @Deverus @Brit @xolaaz @singhski
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:21 p.m.
I would like to file a motion for reconsideration in that you just misapplied the law
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:21 p.m.
Judicial legal error
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:21 p.m.
A lot of this is actually bending what I said
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:22 p.m.
I only said that because he was in this case at all
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:22 p.m.
It implicates the Clause
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:22 p.m.
There’s no residual needed to be proven
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:22 p.m.
Yes, and the ruling addresses that claim.
impactiiiThere’s no residual needed to be proven
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:22 p.m.
Or systemic taint
DoogyYes, and the ruling addresses that claim.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:23 p.m.
You relied on the precedent that governs dismissing an indictment for government misconduct
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:23 p.m.
That’s rooted in the fifth and sixth amendments of the U.S. constitution
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:23 p.m.
That is not rooted in the clear cut Clause (in the Mayflower State Constitution) which is at the heart of the issue here
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:24 p.m.
It's the standards the cases set for extreme sanctions, which is why those cases were brought up. The ruling also addresses Article VI though.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:25 p.m.
Article VI states, which is what your motion is arguing, that the prosecution from the DoJ must remain impartial, which is what the ruling is addressing.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:25 p.m.
Permission to use a voice note cause golly
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:26 p.m.
I’m on a walk
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:26 p.m.
Voice notes cant be added to transcripts so no
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:26 p.m.
I can transcribe it when I go home
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:26 p.m.
Promise
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:26 p.m.
Thanks for mentioning that though, reminded me to turn those permissions off in case channels from now on.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:27 p.m.
I would like to be able to move for reconsideration
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:27 p.m.
You did not apply the correct standards
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:28 p.m.
I can go line by line if you need me too
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:28 p.m.
I won’t even write I’ll just make it a discord message
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:29 p.m.
You can feel free to appeal it if you wish, but the motion is denied because it is applying essentially the same argument as your previous motion to dismiss, which the state also noted prior to my reading of the motion. There is no residual effect found by this Court from DAG Ello's prior involvement in the case. In addition, the DoJ is not affected in its entirety as an entity inclusive of all its staff of being impartial in the matter just because a single prosecutor was disqualified based on findings of personal bias against the Defendant.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:29 p.m.
The residual effect doesn’t matter
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:29 p.m.
Read the clause again
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:29 p.m.
Don’t plug it into chatGPT
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:30 p.m.
Insinuate that I use ChatGPT again in my proceedings and I will sanction you and report you for misconduct.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:30 p.m.
I have read the clause.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:30 p.m.
The DoJ prosecuting attorneys remain impartial and void of any violation of Article VI.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:30 p.m.
The prior involvement of DAG Ello does not reflect a violation of Article VI.
DoogyThe DoJ prosecuting attorneys remain impartial and void of any violation of Article VI.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:30 p.m.
Go back and revoke the disqualification order if that’s the case
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:30 p.m.
I’ll let you
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:31 p.m.
He was disqualified to mitigate any potential reality of a violation of Article VI, his involvement in the case was limited and has had no effect on the proceedings whatsoever besides the argument related to his own disqualification, and therefore, has left no residual effect on the proceedings or the impartiality of any attorney involved.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:32 p.m.
You didn’t even know what Article VI Was before I brought it up
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:32 p.m.
and where are you gathering that from
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:32 p.m.
cause ???
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:32 p.m.
I've clearly read the state constitution before this case.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:35 p.m.
(1) It was omitted from all of your previous rulings on his conduct (where you likely would’ve applied it) and (2) you clearly don’t understand the control that the state constitution has here because that Clause actually, on its face, purports a lesser required standard of “virulence” than Young or anything like that to require some kind of corrective action
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:35 p.m.
And it does not require that the taint be permeated throughout the department
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:35 p.m.
It requires that the department as a whole remain impartial
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:35 p.m.
And if one spoils the bunch
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:35 p.m.
Even then the clause is implicated
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:35 p.m.
Like mold
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:38 p.m.
Perhaps that is your interpretation of the clause, but that is not this Court's. In addition, as you should be well aware, your motion for disqualification was on the basis of personal bias, the nature of which the bias was one that only DAG Ello was found to have. The nature of this bias would only be reflective on the individual themselves, it would be prejudicial of this Court to determine the entirety of the department is impartial based on a disqualification justified by personal bias.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:38 p.m.
Everything is against you though
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:38 p.m.
In terms of case law
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:39 p.m.
It’s kind of absurd
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:39 p.m.
And the state constitution itself
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:39 p.m.
You really really really want this case to go to trial and everyone on this side (and I’m sure the DOJ as well) can tell very well
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:39 p.m.
And it’s not your job to make sure this case goes to trial
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:40 p.m.
Simply to impartially preside and determine questions of law and fact
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:41 p.m.
The constitution is not. As I said, perhaps that is your interpretation of it, but the constitution's mention in Article VI of impartiality is not explicit in stating what you are claiming, and therefore it cannot be asserted as fact. Regarding case law, if there was additional case law against the contents of the ruling, I'd have suspected you would have included it in the motion to enjoin. The case law mentioned in the motion to enjoin was reviewed and addressed already in the ruling.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:41 p.m.
I am opinionless on whether or not this goes to trial, I am just frankly tired of the same argument being presented to this Court in numerous motions after the original was already denied.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:41 p.m.
Why are you even addressing flagrant misconduct when it’s not relevant?
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:42 p.m.
What are you doing?
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:42 p.m.
It is relevant.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:42 p.m.
Honestly
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:42 p.m.
No it’s not
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:42 p.m.
Your entire justification in your motion is on the basis of the motion to disqualify, which needs to be added as background information to properly address the points within the ruling on the motion to enjoin.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:43 p.m.
“I didn’t base it on the standard for dismissal for prosecutorial misconduct”
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:43 p.m.
With your argument being essentially the same as the motion to dismiss as well, that was included for the same reason.
impactiii“I didn’t base it on the standard for dismissal for prosecutorial misconduct”
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:43 p.m.
Misapplication of the law
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:43 p.m.
Just admit you’re wrong, please
DoogyWith your argument being essentially the same as the motion to dismiss as well, that was included for the same reason.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:43 p.m.
I'm not though.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:43 p.m.
Like I said, stop making a fool of yourself in the proceedings
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:43 p.m.
and simply appeal if you wish.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:43 p.m.
Otherwise, see you friday.
Doogyand simply appeal if you wish.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:43 p.m.
I can’t appeal until the end of this case
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:44 p.m.
You realize that, yes?
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:44 p.m.
That’s why I fight it here
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:44 p.m.
You could petition the SC to stay the proceedings and appeal prior to trial.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:44 p.m.
It'd be on a constitutional basis so they have grounds to take the case.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:44 p.m.
No, they declined interlocutory appeal jurisdiction from defendants
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:44 p.m.
Only from the government
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:45 p.m.
That’s why I want a motion for reconsideration
Deverus 2024-10-23 08:45 p.m.
good evening! hate to interrupt. youll have to forgive the delay in my response: I’ve been traveling to and fro fort sill all day to handle some personal matters.
i am harassing my colleagues for their DMs with the aforementioned witness in this case. although, i could have sworn i disclosed the DOJ tip in the original discovery.
if I didn’t, both the defendant and the court has my apologies- it will be immediately disclosed when I return home from my adventure.
i am harassing my colleagues for their DMs with the aforementioned witness in this case. although, i could have sworn i disclosed the DOJ tip in the original discovery.
if I didn’t, both the defendant and the court has my apologies- it will be immediately disclosed when I return home from my adventure.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:45 p.m.
Thank you DeverusLazvari
Deverusgood evening! hate to interrupt. youll have to forgive the delay in my response: I’ve been traveling to and fro fort sill all day to handle some personal matters. i am harassing m...
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:45 p.m.
The links don’t work for me
DoogyReminder. @impactiii @Deverus @Brit @xolaaz @singhski
Deverus 2024-10-23 08:46 p.m.
my apologies as well for not responding: that date and time works for me, as effortless indicated.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:46 p.m.
They didn't?
Deverus 2024-10-23 08:46 p.m.
i will verify with the state’s witnesses as well
impactiiiThe links don’t work for me
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:46 p.m.
Which? Exhibit A or the statements
impactiiiThe links don’t work for me
Deverus 2024-10-23 08:46 p.m.
bollocks. i thought imgur was solid.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:46 p.m.
They both work for me
DoogyWhich? Exhibit A or the statements
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:46 p.m.
Only the medal
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:46 p.m.
only the medal worked?
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:47 p.m.
or only the medal didnt work
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:47 p.m.
Only medal worked
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:47 p.m.
The following from the State's Discovery(for your pleasure):
Exhibit III(A):
Exhibit III(A):
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:47 p.m.
Exhibit III(B):
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:48 p.m.
I also request leave of the court to file a petition for a writ of error coram nobis
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:50 p.m.
As I already stated, the judgment from this court is final on the matter.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:50 p.m.
Exactly
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:50 p.m.
That’s why want to petition for that
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:50 p.m.
You mistook the law
impactiiiThat’s why want to petition for that
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:50 p.m.
I want*
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:51 p.m.
A writ of error coram nobis is a petition to the same court.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:51 p.m.
Right
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:51 p.m.
As stated, the judgment from this court is final on the matter.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:51 p.m.
Exactly
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:51 p.m.
It’s used to rectify final judgements on a mistake of law
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:51 p.m.
That’s why I want to petition for it
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:51 p.m.
Yes, but I am denying any submission of the petition, because, as stated again, the judgment from this court is final on the matter.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:52 p.m.
Also I ran your ruling through gptzero and it came back as 81.3% AI
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:52 p.m.
Don’t blame me blame the robot
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:53 p.m.
I already warned you once of the consequences of insinuating that. Do you wish to be held in contempt?
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:53 p.m.
That wouldn't be very beneficial to the Defendant.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:53 p.m.
For what?
DoogyInsinuate that I use ChatGPT again in my proceedings and I will sanction you and report you for misconduct.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:53 p.m.@impactiii
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:54 p.m.
You’re going to report me for misconduct to your own Bar?
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:54 p.m.
What’re your motives here?
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:55 p.m.
Naturally, I would be recused from the case and before you insinuate any lack of integrity of the Ethics Committee, they would act with impartiality on the matter.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:55 p.m.
You are in violation of the code of ethics, and the rules of my courtroom, that is my motive.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:57 p.m.
I haven’t done anything
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:57 p.m.
All I’ve done is zealously advocate for my client
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:57 p.m.
And once on occasion posited that you might’ve dabbled in ChatGPT
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:58 p.m.
I told you to not insinuate any usage of ChatGPT from myself after your first statement, and then you came back with a further statement with some arbitrary percentage from some arbitrary website stating that it's more than likely I used it for my ruling, which is simply untrue.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:58 p.m.
I had told you not to yet you did anyway.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:58 p.m.
Any sanction or report of your actions would be entirely justified.
Doogy 2024-10-23 08:58 p.m.
Take this as a second and final warning.
impactiii 2024-10-23 08:58 p.m.
I apologize! Truly!
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:02 p.m.@Doogy You have stated in several rulings so far that you believe DAG Ello engaged in personal animus and had a conflict of interest with the defendant
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:02 p.m.
He is also the second most powerful prosecutor in the state
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:02 p.m.
And he has the power to hire, fire, evaluate, and promote the prosecutors under home
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:02 p.m.
Him*
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:03 p.m.
I encourage you to consult the standard in People v. Lepe (which the USDC for S.D. Cal. considered previously)
impactiiiAnd he has the power to hire, fire, evaluate, and promote the prosecutors under home
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:04 p.m.
It addresses these prongs for when the recusal of disqualification of an entire office or “department” is necessary
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-23 09:04 p.m.
I brought it up in this!
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:05 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:05 p.m.
First line is irrelevant but good for context
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:06 p.m.
Since you like reading, you should read it!
impactiiiAnd he has the power to hire, fire, evaluate, and promote the prosecutors under home
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:06 p.m.
.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:06 p.m.
See I don't see why you wouldn't consider this atleast allow us time for discovery
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:07 p.m.
I know you're angry about our 10 different 11 pg mtd's but it's for good reason.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:07 p.m.
All we request is time for discovery before the trial date
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:08 p.m.
At the very least ^
impactiiiClick to see attachment.
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:08 p.m.
I read that and it was addressed in the ruling.
El Taco ManAll we request is time for discovery before the trial date
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:08 p.m.
There was ample time already! And as stated again there was also ample time for any extension of pretrial if needed by either party.
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:09 p.m.
In addition, the defense previously had concerns about the speed of this trial, so that further insinuates your intentions to have the case proceed without delay, which is what every party intends for; a speedy and just trial.
DoogyI read that and it was addressed in the ruling.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:09 p.m.
It wasn’t named once
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:09 p.m.
No you didn’t
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:09 p.m.
Okay, but we still have time! Till the 25th! I just ask you give us those 2 days
impactiiiIt wasn’t named once
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:09 p.m.
I addressed the claim that there is a residual taint on the DoJ.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:10 p.m.
That was actually the motion you declined to consider
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:10 p.m.
I didn’t cite the case because it didn’t seem applicable or relevant.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:10 p.m.
It makes no sense to not allow us especially if what we find can benefit us greatly.
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:10 p.m.
Oh you’re referring to a different motion.
DoogyI didn’t cite the case because it didn’t seem applicable or relevant.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:10 p.m.
Do you think we bring these cases up for fun?
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:10 p.m.
Just for a laugh?
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:10 p.m.
Giggles?
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:10 p.m.
No, the relevance of the case was determined to not be applicable to this case.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:12 p.m.
You didn’t read it
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:12 p.m.
You didn’t consider it
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:12 p.m.
Remember?
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:12 p.m.
Okay I must ask at this point why DQ ello if you didn't think there was an issue, there's a prevalent one and we're trying to give it to you. We truly need this time for discovery. Just give us till the 25th
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:12 p.m.
I still read it.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:13 p.m.
And you thought there was ZERO relevance?
El Taco ManOkay I must ask at this point why DQ ello if you didn't think there was an issue, there's a prevalent one and we're trying to give it to you. We truly need this time for discovery....
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:13 p.m.
It’s already been addressed in the ruling. I feel as if I am doing nothing but stating futile reiterations of what I’ve already addressed in this conversation.
DoogyIt’s already been addressed in the ruling. I feel as if I am doing nothing but stating futile reiterations of what I’ve already addressed in this conversation.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:13 p.m.
I'm asking you to reconsider. It's crucial you understand that this is important.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:14 p.m.
All we want at this point is additional discovery and pretrial until the 25th. There’s quite literally no reason for us to sit here and think “hmm… how many days until Friday?”
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:14 p.m.
And no more fuss from me!
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:14 p.m.
Yeah it's actually baffling that you won't allow us a little smidgen of time.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:15 p.m.
Before the trial btw!
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:15 p.m.
You’ve already been given ample time and had ample opportunity to extend your time if you needed to.
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:15 p.m.
In addition, as I mentioned many times before, it is expected that all substantive motions are to be resolved during the pretrial period. It is the prerogative of the respective parties to bring these issues to the attention of the court during the pretrial period.
DoogyYou’ve already been given ample time and had ample opportunity to extend your time if you needed to.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:16 p.m.
It amazes me you won't budge on one day.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:16 p.m.
We didn’t know that you’d issue the disqualification order one day before pretrial closed
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:16 p.m.
That was going to be a moving piece for us
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:17 p.m.
Actually not even one full today
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:17 p.m.
Day*
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:17 p.m.
It closed hours later
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:17 p.m.
Yeah you also take so long to answer our motions
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:17 p.m.
So we can never respectfully respond back
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:18 p.m.
If was over a day later.
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:18 p.m.
It*
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:18 p.m.
You also didn't give us the option to since you decided it was so irrelevant. Which we believe to be relevant.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:18 p.m.
I ask you just give us ONE DAY of discovery
Deverus 2024-10-23 09:18 p.m.
sigh. im not this guy, but we ask the defendant be sanctioned for his own good at this rate. @Doogy
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:19 p.m.
Lmao
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:19 p.m.
I’ve given nothing but opportunity to you so I’m not sure why you are pretending you are being prejudiced here.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:19 p.m.
That’s so random
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:19 p.m.
You guys are hilarious
DoogyI’ve given nothing but opportunity to you so I’m not sure why you are pretending you are being prejudiced here.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:20 p.m.
Because we're asking you in good faith to give us one day before trial mind you for discovery, how big an issue is that?
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:20 p.m.
You’ve had ample time to extend pretrial if you wanted, you’ve had ample time within pretrial to submit anything you wanted, you had ample time to respond to any motion or reply to any response during pretrial and you had ample time since the motion to disqualify was granted to proceed with any other motion or extension of pretrial in order to proceed with any other motion.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:21 p.m.
Well we can't respond to you if pretrial was closed!
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:21 p.m.
We had hours not ample time once again
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:21 p.m.
I’m not sure why you are pretending there is some prejudice against you by the Court when the Court has been nothing but fair.
impactiiiWe had hours not ample time once again
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:21 p.m.
It was over 24 hours.
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:21 p.m.
That is considered ample.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:21 p.m.
Don't think it was 24
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:21 p.m.
You’re right, it was OVER 24.
DoogyRuling on the motion to disqualify has been posted in rulings . @impactiii @Brit @Deverus @singhski <@11892616692...
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:22 p.m.
10/17/2024 1:19AM ET motion is granted
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:22 p.m.
It wasn’t 24 if pretrial closed on the 18th
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:22 p.m.
10/18/2024 8:00PM ET pretrial ends
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:22 p.m.
News to me
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:22 p.m.
That's over 24 hours later.
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:23 p.m.
Then be more attentive as that is reality.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:23 p.m.
Either way one day of pretrial doesn’t hurt anybody
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:23 p.m.
The messages of all which can be found in this channel.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:23 p.m.
Maybe on these next few days off that you so graciously gave us
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:24 p.m.
You can read some case law! And learn how to use casetext!
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:24 p.m.
Maybe you can learn how to not be a pretentious fool in a courtroom setting!
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:24 p.m.
Perhaps we can both learn some things in the meantime.
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:25 p.m.
Either way, with the current standing of the case, I will see you at the courthouse on Friday.
DoogyEither way, with the current standing of the case, I will see you at the courthouse on Friday.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:26 p.m.
Don’t forget about the prosecutors’ disclosures that are fun
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:26 p.m.
Due* not fun
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:26 p.m.
lol I'm sure they're fun as well
DoogyThe following from the State's Discovery(for your pleasure): Exhibit III(A):
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:26 p.m.
Keep in mind these disclosures from the original discovery that you said the links didn't work for.
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:26 p.m.
Right, enjoy your day Judge...
El Taco Man 2024-10-23 09:26 p.m.
I'm sure you're enjoying yourself
Doogylol I'm sure they're fun as well
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:27 p.m.
If they do not give them to us I will be moving to dismiss on the record as a heads up
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:27 p.m.
Also, I believe @Deverus stated he will be ensuring everything has been provided when he gets home.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:27 p.m.
By Friday
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:27 p.m.
During the trial
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:27 p.m.
I want DAG Ello’s stuff pulled too
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:27 p.m.
He was apart of this case when that original MTC came through
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:30 p.m.
Technically speaking, the motion to compel was denied as moot after you affirmation on the sufficiency of the affidavit certifying the Brady disclosures. So at this point in time, it is not the Court compelling directly for the disclosures but rather the inherent compulsion stemming from the affidavit and the fact that Deverus would have perjured himself if it is found to be unauthentic, and in his own words, in violation of the statement found in the affidavit expressing "The State has turned over all evidence in its possession in its discovery, and has not, by any means, withheld any evidence." Therefore, it'd be his responsibility to ensure those words are truthful by ensuring all the content requested in the Brady disclosures has been provided.
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:31 p.m.
So there is an indirect compulsion from the Court for him to do so, is what I'm getting at, rather than a direct one.
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:31 p.m.
Either way, he is required to present the material or he'd be perjuring himself.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:31 p.m.
He is still technically The State
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:31 p.m.
Like even if a cop
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:32 p.m.
Who wasn’t related to this case at all
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:32 p.m.
Came across a weapon that had aspenfun’s fingerprints on it and said “I’m gonna shoot ISpilledMyTacos”
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:32 p.m.
He’d have to give that to us
Doogy 2024-10-23 09:32 p.m.
Aboslutely, as he stated in the affidavit, any and all evidence in the State's possession related to this case must be provided.
impactiii 2024-10-23 09:33 p.m.
Right
impactiiiI want DAG Ello’s stuff pulled too
xolaaz 2024-10-23 10:42 p.m.
Rent is free this month?
Deverus 2024-10-24 12:35 a.m.
hi! i have returned, and i am exhausted.
furthermore, i am still waiting on some of my colleagues to respond.
i will harass them again in the morning and if they don’t return my polite call, i will disclose what i have and run up the remaining lads’ asses until we have what is requested!
thank you!
@impactiii
furthermore, i am still waiting on some of my colleagues to respond.
i will harass them again in the morning and if they don’t return my polite call, i will disclose what i have and run up the remaining lads’ asses until we have what is requested!
thank you!
impactiii 2024-10-24 12:39 a.m.
Ok
Deverus 2024-10-24 12:26 p.m.
ALAS, THE STATE'S DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS AT THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST
Bon appetit, mon chéri!@impactiii
cc:@Doogy
[Appendix A (Singhski)](https://imgur.com/a/7wSEU1a)
[Appendix B (DeverusLazvari)](https://imgur.com/a/0sgN7fe)
[Appendix C (EffortlessBrit)](https://imgur.com/a/lC5Mz6L)
[Appendix D (ElloM8HowAreYou)](https://imgur.com/a/zhJUZ2L)
[Appendix E (Xolaaz)](https://imgur.com/a/OZ4aN1O)
[Appendix F (DOJ Tip)](https://imgur.com/a/dmI52a3)
Bon appetit, mon chéri!
cc:
impactiii 2024-10-24 12:30 p.m.
Alright
impactiii 2024-10-24 12:30 p.m.@Doogy
impactiii 2024-10-24 12:30 p.m.
I’d like to add Ello as a defense witness
impactiii 2024-10-24 12:30 p.m.
And I can tell you why if need be
impactiii 2024-10-24 12:30 p.m.
He lost his immunity when he started acting as an investigator
Deverus 2024-10-24 12:33 p.m.
i'm actually quite excited to see that line of questioning
DeverusALAS, THE STATE'S DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS AT THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST [Appendix A (Singhski)](https://imgur.com/a/7wSEU1a) [Appendix B (DeverusLazvari)](https://imgur...
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:08 p.m.
i'd also like to add appendix F as a defense exhibit
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:08 p.m.
the DOJ tip
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:08 p.m.
so defense exhibit B
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:08 p.m.
and apprendix D as defense exhibit C
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:08 p.m.
appendix*
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:43 p.m.@Deverus @xolaaz @singhski @Brit
Hello. I am requesting disclosure of a group chat which was pictured in the sidebar of Appendix D. A recording top to bottom will suffice. See the image below:
Hello. I am requesting disclosure of a group chat which was pictured in the sidebar of Appendix D. A recording top to bottom will suffice. See the image below:
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-24 02:44 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:44 p.m.
ex parte disclosure
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-24 02:47 p.m.@Doogy please give them a timeline to comply with this so we dont sit in limbo until tomorrow
Doogy 2024-10-24 02:52 p.m.
Preferably ASAP but 24 hours so by 2:45PM ET tomorrow.
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:52 p.m.@Deverus if you are on mobile just record top to bottom
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:53 p.m.
dont need to hyperlink or anything
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:53 p.m.
send here
Deverus 2024-10-24 02:55 p.m.
not the sadoimpacto haters group chat
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:55 p.m.
chop chop
impactiiichop chop
Brit 2024-10-24 02:56 p.m.
Let's remain respectful and professional at all times
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:56 p.m.
agreed
impactiiichop chop
Deverus 2024-10-24 02:57 p.m.
my guy i am on campus you ain’t saying chop chop to me
Deverusmy guy i am on campus you ain’t saying chop chop to me
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:57 p.m.
cant you just quickly scroll through on your phone?
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:57 p.m.
when was it created?
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 02:57 p.m.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 02:57 p.m.@Doogy Can we have an allotted time for them to hand us the full gc?
impactiiicant you just quickly scroll through on your phone?
Deverus 2024-10-24 02:58 p.m.
you will have it by the deadline
Deverusyou will have it by the deadline
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:59 p.m.
theres 5 of you so anyone can do it
impactiii 2024-10-24 02:59 p.m.
doesnt just have to be you
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:01 p.m.
the court has given a twenty-four hour deadline. i will not detract from my studies to turn over lego evidence.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:01 p.m.
you dont have t o
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:01 p.m.
anyone can do it
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:02 p.m.
also it doesnt take that long
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:02 p.m.
youre on discord right now
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:02 p.m.
just scroll through top to bottom while screen recording and upload it here
Deverusthe court has given a twenty-four hour deadline. i will not detract from my studies to turn over lego evidence.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:03 p.m.
all this typing could be implied as you taking away your time from studying, rather you sit here and argue. either ignore us or send the screen recording of the gc
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:03 p.m.
please make sure you ace your test
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:04 p.m.
better to get it over with and out of the way right now
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:04 p.m.
yeah
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:04 p.m.
if you truly have the means to study.. you should be proactive and quickly do a simple screen record and send it in
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:04 p.m.
then you'll have hours of study time!
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:06 p.m.@xolaaz @singhski @Brit Any of you can also send in this evidence, might you please?
El Taco Mansinghski 2024-10-24 03:07 p.m.
no
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:07 p.m.
I would like to see this "hater" groupchat
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:08 p.m.
yeah same
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:08 p.m.
singhski 2024-10-24 03:08 p.m.@Doogy will you take a verbal notice of withdrawal?
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:08 p.m.
seems like a majority of you are on.. 
singhski 2024-10-24 03:09 p.m.
I was only here to deal with the appellate concerns(edited)
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:09 p.m.
interesting mr singhski, are you in that group chat?
El Taco Maninteresting mr singhski, are you in that group chat?
Brit 2024-10-24 03:10 p.m.
No he is not in that group chat
Brit 2024-10-24 03:11 p.m.
He is not a member of that group chat
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:11 p.m.
who is the 5th then
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:11 p.m.
yeah
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:11 p.m.
??
BritNo he is not in that group chat
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:11 p.m.
Is Ello in it?
Brit 2024-10-24 03:11 p.m.
As the other counselor said there's a deadline and it'll be met
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:11 p.m.
there's 5 of you guys, i'll have you know we're requesting who was added and or removed from that group chat.
BritAs the other counselor said there's a deadline and it'll be met
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:11 p.m.
Is Ello in it?
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:13 p.m.@Doogy im going to ask that you shorten the deadline i understand that it is the afternoon and most people are busy but theres 5 of them who can disclose this and im worried about spoliation. i really am. not saying this just to say it.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:14 p.m.
its a simple screen recording.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:14 p.m.
it takes 2 minutes at an absolute maximum
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:15 p.m.
and the state attorney deveruslazvari just told us it was a "sadoimpacto haters group chat" (https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1282914828780048405/1299083868527394889) so that concerns me in that there must be some substantial things being said in there in regard to this case
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:15 p.m.
That is a curiosity if Singhski isn't the 5th member then who is?
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:15 p.m.
I hope you understand where we're coming from here ^ and yes this too it's quite odd.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:15 p.m.
i would like to know as well
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:15 p.m.
For the record, the membership is down to 3.
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:15 p.m.
Since yesterday?
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:16 p.m.
Considering Ello is now a witness, he has been summarily removed.
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:16 p.m.
I asked for the Solicitor General to file a notice for withdrawal, and also removed him.
DoogySince yesterday?
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:16 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:16 p.m.
appendix D which showed that groupchat
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:16 p.m.
the photo was uploaded two hours ago
DoogySince yesterday?
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:16 p.m.
Yes, since yesterday.
DeverusI asked for the Solicitor General to file a notice for withdrawal, and also removed him.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:16 p.m.
so singhski was in the groupchat?
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:16 p.m.
As will be seen when I take the time to get that lovely groupchat properly disclosed.
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:16 p.m.
Yes, he was.
BritNo he is not in that group chat
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:16 p.m.
why did you lie to us?
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:17 p.m.
what the hell?
impactiiiwhy did you lie to us?
Brit 2024-10-24 03:17 p.m.
At the time you posed your question Mr Singskhi was in fact not a member of the group chat
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:17 p.m.
I want a whole recording of the group chat, I want note of every single addition and removal of persons to that group chat
Brit 2024-10-24 03:17 p.m.
I never lied to you
El Taco ManI want a whole recording of the group chat, I want note of every single addition and removal of persons to that group chat
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:17 p.m.
Thankfully discord makes those notes for us.
DeverusThankfully discord makes those notes for us.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:17 p.m.
Thankfully.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:17 p.m.@Doogy please shorten the deadline
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:18 p.m.
they're already removing people
Brit 2024-10-24 03:18 p.m.
For the record I'm unavailable as I'm getting up at 4 am
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:18 p.m.
Please your honor, it's quite vital that you do. Atleast in the defense's position.
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:18 p.m.
Removing people does not constitute removing evidence.
Brit 2024-10-24 03:18 p.m.
So I'm going to bed very shortly
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:18 p.m.
it takes 2 minutes
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:18 p.m.
screen record
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:18 p.m.
There will be no deletion of anything- as it happens, removing people prevents that.
BritSo I'm going to bed very shortly
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:18 p.m.
well you're not in bed rn.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:18 p.m.
takes less than 2 minutes tbh
DeverusThere will be no deletion of anything- as it happens, removing people prevents that.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:19 p.m.
who owns the gc.
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:19 p.m.
That would be me.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:19 p.m.
Remove everyone but you.
impactiiithe photo was uploaded two hours ago
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:19 p.m.
yeah but the screenshot shows 10/23/2024 of 6:23PM (of whatever timezone)
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:19 p.m.
Hell, if you don't have the allotted time to send a screen recording we ask that you add Nomadity
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:19 p.m.
yes
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:19 p.m.
that would be good
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:19 p.m.
judicial oversight
DeverusThere will be no deletion of anything- as it happens, removing people prevents that.
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:20 p.m.
Real and true
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:20 p.m.
the second part
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:20 p.m.
Perhaps you should remove everyone besides yourself to prevent deletion.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:20 p.m.
yes
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:20 p.m.
Nevermind that judicial oversight in this matter is unecessary , I am happy to add the Judge for the purpose of this disclosure.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:20 p.m.
Please oh please do!
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:20 p.m.
Once again, as the one who certified the Brady disclosure, the burden falls on you less you perjure yourself.
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:20 p.m.
I believe the word is lest, your honour.
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:21 p.m.
So it would probably be most beneficial if you were the one to disclose it as the only remaining member of the chat.
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:21 p.m.
yes deverus
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:21 p.m.
why dont we all get added so we can see the transcript
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:21 p.m.
thank you
impactiiiwhy dont we all get added so we can see the transcript
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:21 p.m.
This is a great idea!
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:21 p.m.
remove the prosecutors so they can delete anything
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:21 p.m.
keep deverus
impactiiiwhy dont we all get added so we can see the transcript
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:21 p.m.
Needless to say, that is not necessary.
El Taco Manwell you're not in bed rn.
Brit 2024-10-24 03:21 p.m.
And how exactly do you know that?
BritAnd how exactly do you know that?
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:22 p.m.
you stated so, "about to head to bed" is in presumption you are not in it, on it, or near it.
El Taco Manyou stated so, "about to head to bed" is in presumption you are not in it, on it, or near it.
Brit 2024-10-24 03:22 p.m.
About is a vague time frame it could be 10 minutes it could be 30 seconds
Brit 2024-10-24 03:22 p.m.
Let the record reflect I am in fact laying on my bed at this very moment
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:22 p.m.
you are typing and on discord right now
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:22 p.m.@Doogy We are politely asking for sanctions against the defendant for repeated inflammatory statements to both your honour and the State's Attorneys. His counsel can speak for him.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:22 p.m.@Deverus please add nomadity
BritLet the record reflect I am in fact laying on my bed at this very moment
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:22 p.m.
Might you entertain the court and send a photo?
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:23 p.m.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:23 p.m.
i want the judge in that groupchat
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:23 p.m.
And as I have said, I am happy to have him.
El Taco ManMight you entertain the court and send a photo?
Brit 2024-10-24 03:23 p.m.
Of course Mr Tacos
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:23 p.m.@Brit I'd also like to mention, you can still screen record on your phone which is honestly even better to do.
Brit 2024-10-24 03:23 p.m. 
Brit 2024-10-24 03:23 p.m.
Here I am in bed
Brit 2024-10-24 03:23 p.m.
For the record
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:24 p.m.
I presume you are not one of those green bubble freaks right?
El Taco ManI presume you are not one of those green bubble freaks right?
Brit 2024-10-24 03:24 p.m.
What is green bubble?
BritClick to see attachment.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:24 p.m.
BritWhat is green bubble?
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:24 p.m.
Androidians...
Brit 2024-10-24 03:24 p.m.
I am indeed using an android at this moment
DeverusAnd as I have said, I am happy to have him.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:24 p.m.
please add him now
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:24 p.m.
For the record, Androids are better phones.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:24 p.m.
I'm gasping for air at that revelation.
Brit 2024-10-24 03:25 p.m.
Let the record reflect I'm using a Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra to type this message
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:25 p.m.
Might we put this in our Exhibit @impactiii to reflect this.
singhski 2024-10-24 03:27 p.m.
Ugh... all the boys are after me...
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:27 p.m.
Yes we are you beautiful piece of meat.
singhski 2024-10-24 03:27 p.m.@Doogy please let me withdraw
singhskiUgh... all the boys are after me...
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:28 p.m.
Want some skittles?
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:28 p.m.
Let the record reflect that this Court is an avid supporter of the iPhone regime
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:28 p.m.
Thank you, your honor.
singhskiDoogy 2024-10-24 03:28 p.m.
Have you submitted any of the 40+ filings?
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:28 p.m.
Let the record reflect that his honour is wrong.
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:28 p.m.
That is, coming from a current iPhone user.
DoogyHave you submitted any of the 40+ filings?
singhski 2024-10-24 03:28 p.m.
Only the response to the motion to dismiss
Brit 2024-10-24 03:29 p.m.
Let the record reflect his honour's phone comes from a less efficient sweatshop than mine
singhskiOnly the response to the motion to dismiss
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:29 p.m.
Were you planning on showing up to the trial?
DoogyWere you planning on showing up to the trial?
singhski 2024-10-24 03:30 p.m.
no
singhski 2024-10-24 03:30 p.m.
I intervened because the MTD raised statutory issues
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:30 p.m.
let the record also reflect that @impactiii is NOT batman.
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:30 p.m.
he is not Him.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:31 p.m.
Relevance! ^ ?
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:31 p.m.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:31 p.m.
You're the fucking joker...
singhski 2024-10-24 03:31 p.m.
It should be noted that ISpilledMyTacos has yet to provide evidence of the alleged taco spillage.
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-24 03:31 p.m.@Doogy back on topic lets get a shorter deadline
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:31 p.m.
singhskiI intervened because the MTD raised statutory issues
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:31 p.m.
Very well. Let the record reflect that Singhski has withdrawn for the state. It seems his participation would not imapct the state's ability to be represented adequately, prejduice either party or disrupt the trial, as he had not even intended to be at the trial.
singhskiIt should be noted that ISpilledMyTacos has yet to provide evidence of the alleged taco spillage.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:32 p.m.
This is your evidence.
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:32 p.m.
I agree. Let's cease with the irrelevant conversation now in hte proceedings.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:32 p.m.
Understood your honor.
DoogyVery well. Let the record reflect that Singhski has withdrawn for the state. It seems his participation would not imapct the state's ability to be represented adequately, prejduice...
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:32 p.m.
his withdrawal* and impact*
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:35 p.m.
I think it would be in the best interest to preserve the contents of the group chat if @Deverus were to remove all parties from it bar himself, and send the recording or screenshots when he's done with his classes OR alternatively, add me to the chat so I can ensure nothing is deleted prior to him being done with class, which he can then send the recording or screenshots as requested.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:36 p.m.
either way something will need to be done as soon as possible
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:36 p.m.
if hes removing people it needs to happen now
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:36 p.m.
and if hes going to add you
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:36 p.m.
it needs to happen now
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:37 p.m.
and he is online
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:37 p.m.
We will make note of the timestamps of removal.
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:37 p.m.
Yes, the removal of the parties or adding me would need to be immediate, which is what I said.
Doogy 2024-10-24 03:37 p.m.
Sending the images or recording would be later on when he returned from classes.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:38 p.m.@Deverus
DoogyI think it would be in the best interest to preserve the contents of the group chat if @Deverus were to remove all parties from it bar himself, and send the recording ...
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:40 p.m.@Doogy if this doesnt happen within 5-10 minutes i will ask that action be taken
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:40 p.m.
(any 3 of them can add you)
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:42 p.m.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:43 p.m.
i'd like it to be made aware that ellom8 is presumably offline at the moment
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:46 p.m.@Doogy I ask that you remain available, as time is of the essence regarding this matter.
impactiii 2024-10-24 03:46 p.m.
5 minutes elapsed
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:46 p.m.
6 minutes.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:48 p.m.@Brit @xolaaz @Deverus Just doing this to catch your attention in hopes that you respond in the allotted time. I use this as a warning to you all.
Deverus 2024-10-24 03:51 p.m.@Doogy i would politely request that his honour turn his attention to his friend request inbox, where my friend request has been sitting for the past 15 minutes.
i ask he does so with great haste before i tweak out on the insufferable double-texting behavior of both the defendant and his counsel.
i ask he does so with great haste before i tweak out on the insufferable double-texting behavior of both the defendant and his counsel.
DeverusEl Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:53 p.m.
Why didn't you say that 10 minutes ago or whenever you actually send the request. That should be your duty to no?
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:53 p.m.
sent*
impactiiiClick to see attachment.
xolaaz 2024-10-24 03:55 p.m.
Would you also like my financial records
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:55 p.m.
Sure! More the merrier
xolaaz 2024-10-24 03:55 p.m.
Sorry bud not gonna happen
xolaaz 2024-10-24 03:56 p.m.
You’ll have to get the judge to do that
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:56 p.m.
That's the Xolaaz we all know and love.
xolaaz 2024-10-24 03:56 p.m.
And as far as evidence goes it’s an oral motion so
xolaaz 2024-10-24 03:56 p.m.
We have 48 to respond thanks
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:56 p.m.
No you do not.
xolaaz 2024-10-24 03:57 p.m.
I don’t see a time frame
xolaaz 2024-10-24 03:57 p.m.
And typically it’s 48 hours for a response to a motion.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:58 p.m.
Don't gotta be one, since he's already handing one in a different form. Atleast as far as evidence goes.. you're correct.. but as soon as he's done with his class or whatever his duty is. He should respond and add Judge Nomadity to the gc.
xolaaz 2024-10-24 03:59 p.m.
Well his class ends in 48 hours
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 03:59 p.m.
Which he already seems to be doing! So might I ask you what in gods name got you in such a pickle
xolaaz 2024-10-24 03:59 p.m.
Your requesting group chats that have aren’t for you
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:00 p.m.
They bring relevance to my case thank you very much. Mr. Xolaaz prosecutor for the Union of Columbia, Clark County.
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:00 p.m.
How do you know it’s about you
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:00 p.m.
godamnit stfu motherfuckers
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:00 p.m.@xolaaz we were given a 24hr timeframe
Deverusgodamnit stfu motherfuckers
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:00 p.m.@Doogy
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:00 p.m.
Cry to daddy
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:01 p.m.
S-s-sanctions..?
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:01 p.m.
Wanna bring the heat to the kitchen then run to daddy when it heats up
DeverusDoogy 2024-10-24 04:01 p.m.
I accepted it immediately btw
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:01 p.m.
idk if it notifies you of that though
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:01 p.m.
Okay great! So he can be added
DoogyI accepted it immediately btw
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:01 p.m.
Oh nice, it does. But, he should add you rn!
El Taco ManOh nice, it does. But, he should add you rn!
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:01 p.m.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:02 p.m.
Lucas & friends!
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:02 p.m.
Can’t wait for trial 
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:02 p.m.
for the record, no it does not. i've long had these silly notifications turned off.
Deverusfor the record, no it does not. i've long had these silly notifications turned off.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:02 p.m.
Yeah, but under normal circumstances Discord does notify you. Also considering you're "Online" and not on "DND" it really SHOULD notify you.
Deverusfor the record, no it does not. i've long had these silly notifications turned off.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:03 p.m.
add him!
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:03 p.m.
please!!!
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:03 p.m.
El Taco ManYeah, but under normal circumstances Discord does notify you. Also considering you're "Online" and not on "DND" it really SHOULD notify you.
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:03 p.m.
You can them them off in system settings.
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:03 p.m.
Doesn’t mean he gets them.
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:03 p.m.
again, refer to the fact that i have notifications turned off
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:03 p.m.
for both mobile and desktop.
impactiiiadd him!
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:03 p.m.@Deverus
Deverusagain, refer to the fact that i have notifications turned off
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:03 p.m.
All g, stop arguing and just add him
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:03 p.m.
he was added the moment he said he accepted it.
Deverushe was added the moment he said he accepted it.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:03 p.m.
alr thanks
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:04 p.m.
Can we put that on the record?
impactiiiadd him!
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:04 p.m.@Doogy Could you please record and archive a copy of that groupchat
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:04 p.m.
it's already on the record by virtue of it being spoke here.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:04 p.m.
Okay, we'll make sure.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:04 p.m.
And confirm you are in it
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:04 p.m.
it's so joever guys, we're being forced to disclose the sado haters groupchat
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-24 04:05 p.m.@Doogy
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:05 p.m.
well, if you truly have nothing to hide you shouldn't be worried.
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:05 p.m.
it really is mostly me bitching at the other prosecutors whilst also bitching about the volume of motions.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:06 p.m.
Can I see? I wanna see!
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:06 p.m.
you'll see when i'm done paying for this dumbass school to teach me how to make pie charts. (i learned this in third grade)
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:06 p.m.
Also, I'd like to verbally request that the disclosures you sent be made in video format. I don't like screenshots especially when it's completely cropped in certain exhibits.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:06 p.m.
yes a video
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:07 p.m.
since when was this a restaraunt.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:07 p.m.
Since I started cooking.
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:07 p.m.
well at least you can cook because you sure as hell can't carry tacos.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:07 p.m.
Don't dine and dash on me now
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:07 p.m.
depends on how good your cooking is.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:08 p.m.
Well.. send the disclosures in video format and we'll see.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:08 p.m.
Preferably .mp4 the most common form of video formatting.
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:09 p.m.
Yes, I have been added
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:09 p.m.
and yes, I took an export of the entire chat the moment I was added.
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:09 p.m.
.viv it is.
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:09 p.m.
It will still be the duty of the prosecution to provide it as per their disclosures to the Court.
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:09 p.m.
My export is simply to confirm the state of the contents.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:09 p.m.
Can we do a live stream at 2:45 PM EST tomorrow
Doogyand yes, I took an export of the entire chat the moment I was added.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:09 p.m.
Thank you! It's truly a blessing your honor to have this evidence!
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:09 p.m.
and i, politely, am not going through the trouble of doing a video.
Deverusand i, politely, am not going through the trouble of doing a video.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:10 p.m.
Okay well we'll see about that.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:10 p.m.
screenshots will be harder
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:10 p.m.
Guess the state is easing up on us huh Sado!
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:10 p.m.
Screenshots will be more plentiful but valid.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:10 p.m.
putting them in order + bulk + hard to follow + etcetera and other etc
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:10 p.m.
etcetera
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:11 p.m.
yeah, that's great and all but i can literally prnt screen and ctrl+v it all into imgur.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:11 p.m.
ok
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:11 p.m.
three keys and a scroll wheel buddy
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:11 p.m.
sounds good!
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:11 p.m.
i actually despise imgur just cause the amount of mobile ad pop ups on that site is aggregious
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:12 p.m.
i did see some rather heinous content on their when i was using it earlier today.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:12 p.m.
yeah
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:12 p.m.
there*
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:12 p.m.
good grief.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:12 p.m.
good grief...
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:12 p.m. 
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:12 p.m.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:12 p.m.
LOL
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:12 p.m.
i only like websites that redirect me to camgirl websites and show me porn while im trying to lock in
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:12 p.m.
(early gyazo)
impactiiii only like websites that redirect me to camgirl websites and show me porn while im trying to lock in
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:13 p.m.
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:16 p.m.
Let the record reflect that.
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:16 p.m.
Anyway, relevant conversation please!
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:21 p.m.@Doogy once we get the screenshots we will compare with your export
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:21 p.m.
line by line
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:21 p.m.
Word by word.. letter by letter...
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:21 p.m.
they're taking the slurs line by line
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:26 p.m.
I confirm I have been added into the anime fan club group chat and have the export from the time I was added.
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:26 p.m.
LOL
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:26 p.m.
Did you guys rename the group chat?
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:26 p.m.
I will also mention though, that some contents of this group chat are related to other cases and it would be acceptable for those portions to be redacted upon submission.
DoogyI will also mention though, that some contents of this group chat are related to other cases and it would be acceptable for those portions to be redacted upon submission.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:27 p.m.
If my counsel or I was mentioned, even if in relation to a different case I ask that those not be redacted.
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:28 p.m.
Yeah, when I say related to other cases it's entirely in relation to those other cases, nothing to do with this one.
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:28 p.m.
It seems this group chat was used for collaborative efforts among more than one case.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:28 p.m.
DoogyI confirm I have been added into the anime fan club group chat and have the export from the time I was added.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:28 p.m.
they renamed the groupchat?
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:28 p.m.
^
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:28 p.m.
No lol, it's just a joke EffortlessBrit said in the chat prior to leaving it
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:28 p.m.
Oh gotcha
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:28 p.m.
oh
DoogyI will also mention though, that some contents of this group chat are related to other cases and it would be acceptable for those portions to be redacted upon submission.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:29 p.m.
only on admission
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:29 p.m.
we have the chance to review things before they are redacted
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:29 p.m.
but if they are brought into open court
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:29 p.m.
then theyd have to be redacted
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:30 p.m.
Everything sent into this chat is considered "open court" in the sense you mean because it's all publicly viewable.
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:30 p.m.
Anything redacted in the state's submission, I can affirm whether or not it would be relevant when compared to my export.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:30 p.m.
so i can cross reference with your unredacted version
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:31 p.m.
Yes it will be cross referenced to ensure the redacted portions are indeed the portions related to other cases that play no part in this case's Brady disclosures and have no relevance to this case.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:31 p.m.
We would like to see the full on evidence of everything shown, although some may not be admissible.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:33 p.m.
If you'd like to send my counsel your export so we can cross reference ourselves, that would be great. I'm sure we'll have no issues regarding things that are totally non-relevant. You could also state what things should or shouldn't be up to you, but we do have a right to see it. If it may not be here, it can be shown elsewhere. If we do find something that could be used as relevant that you deem non-relevant we will argue that on a case-by-case basis.
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:34 p.m.
My concern is that some of it is privileged information related to those cases and could cause conflict of interest regarding those cases for Mr. Sadoimpacto or yourself, as a licensed attorney, were either of you ever in a position of taking interest in one of the mentioned cases.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:35 p.m.
Well, if any mentions of my counsel are included within those redacted cases, I ask those be admissible.
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:35 p.m.
For instance, now that I've seen it all, I have a conflict of interest with the potential of preventing me from presiding on any of the cases mentioned.
El Taco ManWell, if any mentions of my counsel are included within those redacted cases, I ask those be admissible.
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:35 p.m.
Everything relevant to this case would be admissible and not redacted from the submission by the state.
DoogyFor instance, now that I've seen it all, I have a conflict of interest with the potential of preventing me from presiding on any of the cases mentioned.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:36 p.m.
bad day to be judge nomadity
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:36 p.m.
Yeah
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:36 p.m.
There's not much said regarding the other cases so the majority of the group chat would be admissible.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:37 p.m.
Quite a conundrum we all found ourselves in.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:37 p.m.
okay then
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:37 p.m.
i trust you judge nomadity!
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:37 p.m.
Look at these guys grasping for straws
Deverus 2024-10-24 04:37 p.m.
godammit dude
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:38 p.m.
Can we apply a gag order and sanctions on this prosecutor named Xolaaz @Doogy
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:38 p.m.
Perhaps you should let the big boys talk
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:38 p.m.
Just doing what you do my friend.
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:39 p.m.
well your not like me 
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:39 p.m.
you're*
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:39 p.m.
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:39 p.m.
no briefs?
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:40 p.m.
Tick tock buddy, get to workin.
impactiiino briefs?
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:40 p.m.
briefs for what
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:40 p.m.
they just get denied sua sponte everytime
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:40 p.m.
i dont have to reply to anything
impactiii 2024-10-24 04:43 p.m.
Why is there 4 prosecutors on this case instead of 5
DoogyVery well. Let the record reflect that Singhski has withdrawn for the state. It seems his participation would not imapct the state's ability to be represented adequately, prejduice...
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:43 p.m.
Singhski withdrew
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:50 p.m.
There's only 3 now actually
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:50 p.m.
EffortlessBrit, Deverus and Xolaaz
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:51 p.m.
Oh that's right, since Ello was DQ'ed
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:51 p.m.
Oh yes the totally sane argument that ello ruined our case I remember that
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:52 p.m.
Dense prosecutors say what?
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:52 p.m.
Who are you calling dense?
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:52 p.m.
The sky
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:52 p.m.@impactiii Control your client please
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:53 p.m.
I ask that the state realizes Prosecutor Xolaaz is attempting to "ragebait" and "antogonize" the defense.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:53 p.m.
antagonize*
xolaaz 2024-10-24 04:53 p.m.
The state realizes, denies all accusations
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 04:53 p.m.
As per usual.. of the state..
Brit 2024-10-24 04:54 p.m.@Doogy So to be clear is his honour's plan to go through the group chat decide what has to be disclosed, in terms of Brady, and redact the rest
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:55 p.m.
We await Deverus's submission of the disclosures of the group chat. It would be his preogative to redact the information related to the other case(s) himself. I will simply compare his submission with my export to affirm that the redactions are valid to ensure nothing related to this case is redacted and that the disclosures of the group chat are complete.
DoogyWe await Deverus's submission of the disclosures of the group chat. It would be his preogative to redact the information related to the other case(s) himself. I will simply compare...
Brit 2024-10-24 04:56 p.m.
So the state will redact and you'll then simply assess if any redaction is relevant
Brit 2024-10-24 04:57 p.m.
If that makes sense
Doogy 2024-10-24 04:57 p.m.
Yep
Brit 2024-10-24 04:57 p.m.
Alright thank you
Brit 2024-10-24 04:58 p.m.@Doogy How long do we have for this?
impactiii 2024-10-24 05:04 p.m.
Anything about this case or even hinting at this case should be considered relevant
impactiii 2024-10-24 05:04 p.m.
Even a scintilla of relevance
xolaaz 2024-10-24 05:04 p.m.
Thank you for your opinion
impactiii 2024-10-24 05:05 p.m.@Doogy Can you please control this ragebaiting prosecutor
impactiiiAnything about this case or even hinting at this case should be considered relevant
Brit 2024-10-24 05:05 p.m.
And the judge will ensure such
impactiiiEl Taco Man 2024-10-24 05:06 p.m.
This guy has been actively antagonizing the defense almost everytime he speaks.
Brit 2024-10-24 05:06 p.m.
The judge is there to assess if our disclosure is sufficient and I am certain they are aware of the relevant test to determine that and how to apply
Brit 2024-10-24 05:06 p.m.
it
impactiiixolaaz 2024-10-24 05:08 p.m.
Simple. Do not be rage baited.
BritThe judge is there to assess if our disclosure is sufficient and I am certain they are aware of the relevant test to determine that and how to apply
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 05:08 p.m.
Side note, since you've been in bed what you been doing? Do you like to engage in activities such as Tiktok? Or Youtube Shorts?
xolaaz 2024-10-24 05:08 p.m.
Compose yourself..
El Taco ManSide note, since you've been in bed what you been doing? Do you like to engage in activities such as Tiktok? Or Youtube Shorts?
xolaaz 2024-10-24 05:08 p.m.
Maybe you should mind your own business
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 05:08 p.m.
I'm a curious man 
xolaaz 2024-10-24 05:09 p.m.
if you're that curious, please learn to mind your own business 
BritDoogy 2024-10-24 05:09 p.m.
Until 2:45PM ET tomorrow on the 25th. I believe @Deverus plans to supply the disclosures though sometime today when he returns from class.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 05:09 p.m.
You know, I have a slight assumption you're not as impartial as I believe you to be.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 05:09 p.m.
cc: Xolaaz ^
xolaaz 2024-10-24 05:09 p.m.
Duly noted.
DoogyUntil 2:45PM ET tomorrow on the 25th. I believe @Deverus plans to supply the disclosures though sometime today when he returns from class.
xolaaz 2024-10-24 05:10 p.m.
Godspeed!
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 05:12 p.m.
Honestly, the way you talk seems to be very reminiscent of very certain prosecutor that no longer remains on this case.. The more you blab on and continue to antagonize the defense the more it appears that you seem to be on the same boat as him. Might I find something in relation to that, who knows.
xolaaz 2024-10-24 05:13 p.m.
Should you feel any type of way, please file a motion with the judge accordingly.
El Taco Man 2024-10-24 05:14 p.m.
I will do so if the need arises. You have my word good fellow.
Deverus 2024-10-24 07:34 p.m.
Good evening,
With regards to the Defendant’s request to produce all exculpatory evidence as it relates to a group chat between the prosecutors, past and present, who work on this case: after reviewing the material within in its entirety, I find nothing required for disclosure underBrady .
While not a direct application to the circumstances of this case,In re U.S. , 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) provides a very good summary of what *Brady *and *Giglio require the prosecution to produce:
“The basic rule of Brady is that the government has a constitutional duty to disclose favorable evidence to the accused where such evidence is “material” either to guilt or to punishment.” In re U.S.*, 267 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2001) As for Giglio , the 2nd Circuit states that such evidence “includes not only evidence that tends to exculpate the accused, but also evidence that is useful to impeach the credibility of a Government Witness.” Id .
In summary: such disclosure is only required wherein such evidence “could reasonably [have been] taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.”Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 115 S. Ct. 1555 (1995)
His honour has access to the group chat, and I wholly encourage him to review for himself and take into account whether the contents of said group chat are required for disclosure underBrady , however, the State finds that it has thus far met its obligation to disclose all evidence that would be material to the guilt/punishment of the defendant or impeach the credibility of Government witnesses.
@Doogy @impactiii
With regards to the Defendant’s request to produce all exculpatory evidence as it relates to a group chat between the prosecutors, past and present, who work on this case: after reviewing the material within in its entirety, I find nothing required for disclosure under
While not a direct application to the circumstances of this case,
“The basic rule of Brady is that the government has a constitutional duty to disclose favorable evidence to the accused where such evidence is “material” either to guilt or to punishment.”
In summary: such disclosure is only required wherein such evidence “could reasonably [have been] taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.”
His honour has access to the group chat, and I wholly encourage him to review for himself and take into account whether the contents of said group chat are required for disclosure under
Deverus 2024-10-24 07:35 p.m.
If his honor finds my decision to be incorrect, I encourage him to publish a court order requiring me to disclose such materials.
Deverus 2024-10-24 07:36 p.m.
in any case, i will be unavailable until 9pm cdt. i have another class to tend to.
DeverusGood evening, With regards to the Defendant’s request to produce all exculpatory evidence as it relates to a group chat between the prosecutors, past and present, who work on this...
impactiii 2024-10-24 08:28 p.m.
Alright, just to clear things up real quick: what was cited in the fourth paragraph isn't actually the standard for what the State has to disclose under Brady . That's more about what it takes to prove a Brady violation—which, by the way, is totally different. It's not some shortcut that limits what the prosecution needs to hand over.
In context, it actually reads:
That quote is about proving aBrady violation, which comes into play after the fact, when someone's trying to show that not disclosing evidence actually hurt their case. We're not even talking about a Brady violation right now; we're talking about what needs to be disclosed in the first place. Totally different ballgame.
The entire group chat (minus redactions) must be disclosed for the following reasons:
1. Defense witness, state prosecutor/quasi-investigator, and now-disqualified DAG ElloM8HowAreYou actively participated in that group chat, and whatever he says would be "material" to these proceedings (for the purposes of being a witness) and "exculpatory." It's favorable to the accused because he is now a defense witness and potentially exculpatory in other ways that we can't anticipate yet.
2. The group chat might contain information that could impeach the credibility of state witnesses or reveal bias, which falls underGiglio requirements for disclosure. Given ElloM8HowAreYou's role and involvement, anything he said or contributed could be highly relevant to the defense's case and the fairness of the trial.
3. The prosecution cannot unilaterally decide what is material or favorable without transparency. The defense is entitled to review the communications involving a key participant like ElloM8HowAreYou, especially since he was in a quasi-investigatory role and now serves as a defense witness. This falls directly under the prosecution's duty to provide all potential exculpatory evidence, regardless of their own interpretation of its importance.
4. Communications between law enforcement officers (including prosecutors—yes, you guys are law enforcement officers too) of the prosecution team in this case in relation to the investigation or prosecution are discoverable. The defense has a right to see these communications to determine if there is any exculpatory or impeachment material. The idea that the State can make that call without oversight is exactly whyBrady exists in the first place.
Also,the judge doesn’t need to give a court order —you have to give it to us anyway under Brady and its progeny. You already stated on the record it was a "sadoimpacto hater groupchat" (and I—that is, me, of course—am sadoimpacto), and it also contains (or contained) all 5 prosecutors (and a defense witness), past and present, on this case. So, therefore, it leads us all to the conclusion that this group chat is highly relevant and must be disclosed.
Bottom line: withholding these communications is not consistent withBrady or Giglio , and any attempt to cherry-pick what's handed over will be a major issue for this case down the line.
Other Relevant Case Law:
1. InUnited States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 667 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Brady duty to disclose applies to exculpatory evidence as well as evidence that could be used to impeach witnesses.
2. InKyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the particularized requirement to disclose "exculpatory" evidence was broadened to include even "potentially" exculpatory evidence.
3. InUnited States v. Agurs , 427 U.S. 97 (1976), it was held that the lack of a defendant's request (or a court order) did not leave the Government free of all Brady obligation.
In context, it actually reads:
"One does not show a , but by showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict."Brady violation by demonstrating that some of the inculpatory evidence should have been excludedKyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 435 (1995)
That quote is about proving a
The entire group chat (minus redactions) must be disclosed for the following reasons:
1. Defense witness, state prosecutor/quasi-investigator, and now-disqualified DAG ElloM8HowAreYou actively participated in that group chat, and whatever he says would be "material" to these proceedings (for the purposes of being a witness) and "exculpatory." It's favorable to the accused because he is now a defense witness and potentially exculpatory in other ways that we can't anticipate yet.
2. The group chat might contain information that could impeach the credibility of state witnesses or reveal bias, which falls under
3. The prosecution cannot unilaterally decide what is material or favorable without transparency. The defense is entitled to review the communications involving a key participant like ElloM8HowAreYou, especially since he was in a quasi-investigatory role and now serves as a defense witness. This falls directly under the prosecution's duty to provide all potential exculpatory evidence, regardless of their own interpretation of its importance.
4. Communications between law enforcement officers (including prosecutors—yes, you guys are law enforcement officers too) of the prosecution team in this case in relation to the investigation or prosecution are discoverable. The defense has a right to see these communications to determine if there is any exculpatory or impeachment material. The idea that the State can make that call without oversight is exactly why
Also,
Bottom line: withholding these communications is not consistent with
1. In
2. In
3. In
impactiii 2024-10-24 08:28 p.m.
CC: @Doogy
Deverus 2024-10-24 09:10 p.m.
honestly, fair nuff. ill get it when i get back home.
impactiii 2024-10-24 09:12 p.m.
impactiii 2024-10-24 11:48 p.m.@Deverus no rush but reminder
Deverus 2024-10-24 11:55 p.m.
thank you. i was in the process of getting this all sorted.
Deverus 2024-10-24 11:57 p.m.
[Appendix A](https://imgur.com/a/y4a8J7v)
[Appendix B](https://imgur.com/a/hMR96T5)
[Appendix C](https://imgur.com/a/rfVhfsz)
this would be what you're asking. matters relevant to other cases redacted.
i seek now to slumber. goodnight gentlemen.
i expect there will be another motion in my inbox by the time i wake- in which case i ask you respectfully wait for a full and proper response until i get home from work at 8:30pm edt, lest my fellow prosecutors do some foot-work.
@impactiii
cc:@Doogy
[Appendix B](https://imgur.com/a/hMR96T5)
[Appendix C](https://imgur.com/a/rfVhfsz)
this would be what you're asking. matters relevant to other cases redacted.
i seek now to slumber. goodnight gentlemen.
i expect there will be another motion in my inbox by the time i wake- in which case i ask you respectfully wait for a full and proper response until i get home from work at 8:30pm edt, lest my fellow prosecutors do some foot-work.
cc:
Deverus[Appendix A](https://imgur.com/a/y4a8J7v) [Appendix B](https://imgur.com/a/hMR96T5) [Appendix C](https://imgur.com/a/rfVhfsz) this would be what you're asking. matters relevant to...
impactiii 2024-10-24 11:59 p.m.@Doogy if we could get to cross-referencing
impactiii 2024-10-25 12:02 a.m.
nevermind
impactiii 2024-10-25 12:02 a.m.
dont bother i believe the transcript
impactiii 2024-10-25 12:02 a.m.@Doogy i request leave to file another motion if need be based on the outcome of this newly disclosed evidence
Deverusthank you. i was in the process of getting this all sorted.
impactiii 2024-10-25 12:15 a.m. 
impactiii 2024-10-25 12:15 a.m.
what was that giant gap about
Deverus 2024-10-25 12:15 a.m.
matters related to another case.
impactiii 2024-10-25 12:15 a.m.
between who?
Deverus 2024-10-25 12:15 a.m.
myself and xolaaz
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-25 12:23 a.m.@Doogy
impactiii 2024-10-25 12:57 a.m.
You can page limit me if you want
xolaaz 2024-10-25 12:58 a.m.
Be careful not to delay the trial that long since its supposed to be a speedy trial
xolaaz 2024-10-25 12:58 a.m.
Trial is tomorrow!
impactiii 2024-10-25 01:02 a.m.
You’ll have a chance to respond don’t worry
impactiii 2024-10-25 01:02 a.m.
Your name will pop up
impactiii 2024-10-25 01:02 a.m.
In that motion
xolaaz 2024-10-25 01:02 a.m.
Please dont delay the trial.
xolaaz 2024-10-25 01:02 a.m.
Trial is tomorrow
impactiii 2024-10-25 01:03 a.m.
It’s not your trial it’s our trial thank you very much
xolaaz 2024-10-25 01:03 a.m.
I mean you pushed for a speedy trial now you want to delay make up your mind
impactiii 2024-10-25 01:03 a.m.
Just put the briefs in the bag bro
impactiii 2024-10-25 01:03 a.m.
No pdfs ever
impactiii 2024-10-25 01:03 a.m.
No filings ever
impactiii 2024-10-25 01:03 a.m.
DEI ah
xolaaz 2024-10-25 01:04 a.m.
I have this thing outside of clark county that takes up most of my time, also just got back from a break so of course I'll have nothing filed
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-10-25 01:04 a.m.@Doogy Apologies for going topic. Same ask!
impactiii 2024-10-25 01:04 a.m.
Off topic*
xolaaz 2024-10-25 01:04 a.m.
See you tomorrow!
Doogy 2024-10-25 10:44 a.m.
I'm sure whatever it is you wish to bring up in a motion could just be brought up at trial.
DoogyI'm sure whatever it is you wish to bring up in a motion could just be brought up at trial.
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:48 a.m.
Not really
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:48 a.m.
I’m not allowed to argue issues of law at trial
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:48 a.m.
Only facts
impactiiiI’m not allowed to argue issues of law at trial
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:49 a.m.
Meaning I can’t argue the standard for prosecutorial misconduct or something like that
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:49 a.m.
I could argue the elements of a criminal statute that are at hand here
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:49 a.m.
But not like a full on legal standard
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:49 a.m.
That’s why we have notions
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:49 a.m.
Motions*
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:49 a.m.
All questions of law are supposed to be resolved before trial
Doogy 2024-10-25 10:53 a.m.
You can argue it at trial still, if you believe it wasn't adequately addressed in pretrial motions, you can raise the issues at trial. For example, in the case of prosecutorial misconduct, you can argue it as grounds for objecting to evidence, testimony, during cross-examinations or examinations of witnesses, or by challenging the credibility of the prosecution, etc.
DoogyYou can argue it at trial still, if you believe it wasn't adequately addressed in pretrial motions, you can raise the issues at trial. For example, in the case of prosecutorial mis...
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:53 a.m.
I just want to make a short motion
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:53 a.m.
I have to
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:54 a.m.
It goes to the merits of the case as a whole and not to a specific piece of evidence
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:54 a.m.
And no I can’t argue it at trial like I said questions of law aren’t for trial
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:56 a.m.
It’s based on this new evidence
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:57 a.m.
I wouldn’t have a chance to make it before
DoogyThere are exceptions, which I mentioned, such as if it introduces new legal grounds based on evidence or exceptional circumstances. This motion doesn’t introduce new evidence and w...
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:59 a.m.
.
Doogy 2024-10-25 11:06 a.m.
You can still argue at trial your point if new evidence raises any substantial legal or factual questions. They can be allowed to be handled through objections, examinations, cross-examinations, testimony, etc rather than a motion. A motion would require separate legal briefing and potentially delay the trial. There is adequate consideration granted to parties during trial to address any new evidence that was entered within close proximity to the trial date, in this case, it was entered less than 24 hours to the trial date, so it would be adequately considered in trial. This gives you, the defense, the opportunity to challenge or use the new evidence in front of the fact-finder rather than potentially delaying the trial. Typically at this point when new evidence is entered into record, Courts prioritize moving forward with trial if it's already scheduled. Addressing the issue within the trial allows the Court to evaluate the evidence and hear arguments in real time which can potentially resolve the matter without delaying proceedings.
There is generally a high threshold for granting any last minute dismissal motion, or a like, especially if the same arguments have already been attempted in prior motions.
You can still submit the motion if you wish, as long as it's prior to the trial time with ample time for the prosecution to review, but the motion would be addressed in trial nonetheless to allow it to be adequately considered to establish whether or not the recent evidence directly points to any misconduct or undermines the legitimacy of the prosecution's case.
There is generally a high threshold for granting any last minute dismissal motion, or a like, especially if the same arguments have already been attempted in prior motions.
You can still submit the motion if you wish, as long as it's prior to the trial time with ample time for the prosecution to review, but the motion would be addressed in trial nonetheless to allow it to be adequately considered to establish whether or not the recent evidence directly points to any misconduct or undermines the legitimacy of the prosecution's case.
DoogyYou can still argue at trial your point if new evidence raises any substantial legal or factual questions. They can be allowed to be handled through objections, examinations, cross...
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:08 a.m.
This just isn’t true though
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:08 a.m.
If you look at a real life docket
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:08 a.m.
Motions to dismiss get made before, after, and even during the trial
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:08 a.m.
Same with other motions like motions in limine
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:08 a.m.
Motions for mistrial
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:08 a.m.
But ill submit it
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:09 a.m.
And it’s fine if they can address it at trial
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:09 a.m.
As long as I can submit it
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:09 a.m.
Also another question d
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:09 a.m.
Will there be a court reporter or someone recording
Doogy 2024-10-25 11:10 a.m.
It's ultimately up to the Court's discretion on how to proceed with arguments being presented from new evidence submitted so close to trial time. It's not to say that you're "not allowed" to motion to dismiss at this stage, it's more so in order to preserve the fairness of the trial and adequately consider the new evidence in the light of your argument in your motion, that it can be argued at trial.
impactiiiWill there be a court reporter or someone recording
Doogy 2024-10-25 11:10 a.m.
I'll be recording
DoogyIt's ultimately up to the Court's discretion on how to proceed with arguments being presented from new evidence submitted so close to trial time. It's not to say that you're "not a...
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:13 a.m.
Fairness leans more toward favoring us
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:13 a.m.
Not them
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:14 a.m.
But I see
Doogy 2024-10-25 11:15 a.m.
That's a contradictory statement. Fairness is equal to both parties, it's inherent in the meaning of the word.
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:15 a.m.
Not necessarily
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:15 a.m.
Take something like the rule of lenity for example
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:15 a.m.
It states there when a criminal statute is vague, it must be interpreted in a light most favorable to the defendant
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:16 a.m.
And also the standard of proof here
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:16 a.m.
The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:16 a.m.
Only the state beyond a reasonable doubt
Doogy 2024-10-25 11:17 a.m.
The rule of lenity is sort of embedded in the standard of proof, so yes, it would be "more favorable" to the defendant in that case because the ambiguousness of the statute would have to be proven by the burdened party. That wouldn't be the case here though. It is still the objective to be equally fair to both parties unless it falls under a special circumstance such as one qualifying under the rule of lenity, which isn't the case here.
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:44 a.m.
That’s still not entirely accurate
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:44 a.m.
But I digress
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:45 a.m.
And no
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:45 a.m.
The rule of lenity isn’t embedded into the burden of proof
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:45 a.m.
The rule of lenity is a “junior” of the void-for-vagueness doctrine
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:47 a.m.
But to say that, even considering all of the rights of the accused (4th, 5th, and 6th amendments), two centuries of case law, the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and then to go on to say that the system favors the state or is “equal” to both sides is inaccurate
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:47 a.m.
And the bill of rights protects the rights of the people in general, not the government
impactiii 2024-10-25 11:48 a.m.
I suspect you would’ve been a federalist back in the day
Deverus 2024-10-25 01:03 p.m.
he is Alexander Hamilton.
Doogy 2024-10-25 01:30 p.m.
I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying
Doogy 2024-10-25 01:30 p.m.
but I also digress.
Deverushe is Alexander Hamilton.
El Taco Man 2024-10-25 01:32 p.m.
Then.. call me Aaron Burr... (alledgedly.)
El Taco Man 2024-10-25 01:32 p.m.
allegedly
Doogy 2024-10-25 08:54 p.m.
Trial time in 20 minutes @impactiii @El Taco Man @Deverus @xolaaz @Brit
Deverus 2024-10-25 08:54 p.m.
tracking
Doogy 2024-10-25 08:54 p.m.
im tryna do it in the first server, queue is 20 ppl atm so if you pend now you might make it into the server in time
Doogy 2024-10-25 08:54 p.m.
lol
impactiii 2024-10-25 08:54 p.m.DEFENDANT ISPILLEDMYTACOS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND FOR SANCTIONS
CC:@Doogy
Doogy 2024-10-25 08:55 p.m.
you said you were making it short
impactiii 2024-10-25 08:55 p.m.
i tried but there was so much to tie together
impactiii 2024-10-25 08:55 p.m.
its a big circle
Doogyim tryna do it in the first server, queue is 20 ppl atm so if you pend now you might make it into the server in time
El Taco Man 2024-10-25 08:57 p.m.
joining
Doogy 2024-10-25 08:58 p.m.
Alright yeah we'll actually do it in the second server
El Taco Man 2024-10-25 08:58 p.m.
k
Doogy 2024-10-25 08:58 p.m.
so we're not in queue for 40 minutes
El Taco Man 2024-10-25 09:18 p.m.@Doogy Hey, can you accept Wiggyboy's NoA
impactiii 2024-10-25 10:24 p.m. 
Doogy 2024-10-25 10:35 p.m.
Okay, I will write a ruling for this soon.
Doogy 2024-10-25 10:35 p.m.
As the verdict stands though, motion to dismiss is granted and the case is dismissed with prejudice.
xolaaz 2024-10-25 11:10 p.m.
Fun battle god bless your honor and the defnenda t: salute
Doogy 2024-10-27 11:18 a.m.
Ruling posted. rulings
Doogy 2024-10-27 11:18 a.m.
This channel will be archived.
Exported 1694 messages